1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California
EDWARD H. OCHOA (SBN 144842)
Senior Assistant Attorney General
LAURA J. ZUCKERMAN (SBN 161896)
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
HEATHER M. LEWIS (SBN 291933)
ERIN GANAHL (SBN 248472)
MARI MAYEDA (SBN 110947)
BRIAN CALAVAN (SBN 347724)
KATE HAMMOND (SBN 293433)
Deputy Attorneys General
1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor
P.O. Box 70550
Oakland, CA 94612-0550
Telephone: (510) 879-1008
Fax: (510) 622-2270
E-mail: Heather.Lewis@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff
People of the State of California ex rel. Rob Bonta,
Attorney General of California

EXEMPT FROM FILING FEESUNDER GOV. CODE SEC. 6103

12SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

13

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

14
15
16
17

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT,EQUITABLE RELIEF, PENALTIES,AND DAMAGES

Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

18
19

Case No.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OFCALIFORNIA, ex rel. ROB BONTA,ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA,(1) PUBLIC NUISANCE;(2) GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
12607;EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION;(3) UNTRUE OR MISLEADINGEXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION;
ADVERTISING;
SHELL PLC; SHELL USA, INC.; SHELL(4)MISLEADINGENVIRONMENTALOIL PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC;
MARKETING;CHEVRON CORPORATION; CHEVRON
U.S.A. INC.; CONOCOPHILLIPS;(5) UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR, OR
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY;FRAUDULENT BUSINESSPHILLIPS 66; PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY; BP
PRACTICES;
P.L.C.; BP AMERICA INC.; AMERICAN(6) STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY –PETROLEUM INSTITUTE; AND DOES 1
FAILURE TO WARN; AND
THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE,(7) NEGLIGENT PRODUCTS
LIABILITY – FAILURE TO WARN
Defendants.
v.

28
1
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Page

3

I.

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5

4

II.

PARTIES ................................................................................................................ 8

5
6

A.

Plaintiff........................................................................................................ 8

B.

Defendants................................................................................................... 8C.

Relevant Non-Parties: Defendants’ Agents/Front Groups ........................ 29

7

III.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................... 30

8IV.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 32

9

A.

10

Defendants Are Substantially Responsible for Causing and
Accelerating Climate Change ................................................................... 32

B.

Defendants Went to Great Lengths to Understand the Dangers
Associated with Fossil Fuel Products, and Either Knew or Should
Have Known of Those Dangers ................................................................ 36

C.

Defendants Did Not Disclose Known Harms Associated with the
Intended Use of Fossil Fuel Products, and Instead Affirmatively
Concealed Those Harms by Engaging in a Campaign of Deception
to Increase the Use of Those Products ...................................................... 52

D.

Defendants Could Have Chosen to Facilitate, and Be Part of, aLower-Carbon Future, but Instead Chose Corporate Profits andContinued Deception ................................................................................. 71

E.

Defendants’ Internal Actions Demonstrate Their Awareness of the
Impacts of Climate Change and Their Intent to Continue to Profit
from the Unabated Use of Fossil Fuel Products........................................ 72

F.

Defendants’ Actions Have Slowed the Development of Alternative
Energy Sources and Exacerbated the Costs of Adapting to and
Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of the Climate Crisis .............................. 74

G.

Defendants Continue to Deceive California Consumers ThroughMisleading Advertisements That Portray Defendants as ClimateFriendly Energy Companies and Obscure Their Role in Causing
Climate Change ......................................................................................... 80

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

1.

Defendants’ Affirmative Promotion of Fossil Fuel Products
as “Green,” “Clean,” or Otherwise Good for theEnvironment Is Likely to Mislead California Consumers
About How Use of Those Fossil Fuel Products Leads to
Climate Change ............................................................................. 81

2.

Defendants’ Affirmative Claims That They Contribute
Substantially to Climate Change Solutions Are Likely to
Mislead California Consumers ...................................................... 88

24
25
26
27
28

2
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS(continued)

2
3

H.

Defendants’ Concealments and Misrepresentations Regarding theDangers of Fossil Fuel Products Encouraged Continued Use of
Fossil Fuels and Discouraged Concerted Action on Greenhouse Gas
Emissions .................................................................................................. 92

I.

The Effects of Defendants’ Deceit Are Ongoing ...................................... 94

J.

The State Has Suffered, Is Suffering, and Will Suffer Injuries from
Defendants’ Wrongful Conduct ................................................................ 96

4
5
6
7

Page

1.

Extreme Heat ................................................................................. 97

2.

Drought and Water Shortages ..................................................... 100

3.

Extreme Wildfire......................................................................... 102

4.

Public Health Injuries .................................................................. 107

115.

Extreme Storms and Flooding..................................................... 109

12

6.

Damage to Agriculture ................................................................ 111

13

7.

Sea Level Rise, Coastal Flooding and Coastal Erosion .............. 114

8.

Ecosystem, Habitat, and Biodiversity Disruption ....................... 116

8
9
10

14
15

V.

CAUSES OF ACTION ....................................................................................... 120
First Cause of Action: Public Nuisance .............................................................. 120

16

Second Cause of Action: Action For Equitable Relief For Pollution,
Impairment, And Destruction of Natural Resources ........................................... 123

17

Third Cause of Action: Untrue or Misleading Advertising ................................ 125

18

Fourth Cause of Action: Misleading Environmental Marketing......................... 126

19

Fifth Cause of Action: Unlawful, Unfair, or Fraudulent Business Practices ...... 127

20

Sixth Cause of Action: Strict Products Liability ................................................. 128

21

Seventh Cause of Action: Negligent Products Liability ..................................... 131

22
23

VI.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF...................................................................................... 133

VII.

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL .......................................................................... 136

24
25
26
27
28

3
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

The People of the State of California, by and through Rob Bonta, the Attorney General of2

California, allege as follows:

3

I.

4

INTRODUCTION
1.

In 2023 alone, the State of California has endured both extreme drought and5widespread flooding, sprawling wildfires and historic storms, and an unusually cold spring and a

6

record-hot summer. These extremes are devastating the State and destroying people’s lives and7

livelihoods, and they are accelerating. These extremes are the products of climate change, and8climate change is the product of widespread combustion of fossil fuels. Oil and gas company

9executives have known for decades that reliance on fossil fuels would cause these catastrophic

10

results, but they suppressed that information from the public and policymakers by actively

11

pushing out disinformation on the topic. Their deception caused a delayed societal response to12

global warming. And their misconduct has resulted in tremendous costs to people, property, and13

natural resources, which continue to unfold each day. Californians and their families,

14

communities, and small businesses should not have to bear all the costs of climate change alone;15

the companies that have polluted our air, choked our skies with smoke, wreaked havoc on our

16water cycle, and contaminated our lands must be made to mitigate the harms they have brought

17

upon the State. This lawsuit seeks to hold those companies accountable for the lies they have told

18

and the damage they have caused.

19

2.

The People of the State of California (State) 1 bring this action against Defendants

20

Exxon Mobil Corporation; ExxonMobil Oil Corporation; Shell plc; Shell USA, Inc.; Shell Oil

21

Products Company LLC; Chevron Corporation; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; ConocoPhillips;

22

ConocoPhillips Company; Phillips 66; Phillips 66 Company; BP P.L.C.; BP America Inc.;

23

American Petroleum Institute, and Does 1 through 100 (collectively, Defendants) for creating,24

contributing to, and/or assisting in the creation of state-wide climate change-related harms in

25
26
27
28

1

In this Complaint, the term “State” refers to the State of California, unless otherwise
stated. The term “California” refers to the area falling within the State’s geographic boundaries,
unless otherwise stated. The State expressly disclaims injuries arising on federal land and tribal
lands held in trust by the United States and does not seek recovery or relief attributable to theseinjuries.
4
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

California. As more fully alleged below, Defendants created, contributed to, and/or assisted in the2creation of a public nuisance, and harmed or destroyed natural resources.

3

3.

Defendants are large companies in the fossil fuel industry who have misled4

consumers and the public about climate change for decades. Defendants have known since at least5

the 1960s that fossil fuels produce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution that

6

would warm the planet and change our climate. Defendants’ own scientists knew as early as the7

1950s that these climate impacts would be catastrophic, and that there was only a narrow window

8of time in which communities and governments could take action before the consequences9

became catastrophic.

104.

Rather than warn consumers, the public, and governments, however, Defendants

11

mounted a disinformation campaign beginning at least as early as the 1970s to discredit the12burgeoning scientific consensus on climate change; deny their own knowledge of climate change-

13

related threats; create doubt in the minds of consumers, the media, teachers, policymakers, and14

the public about the reality and consequences of the impacts of burning fossil fuels; and delay the15necessary transition to a lower-carbon future.

16

5.

Defendants’ climate deception campaign, and aggressive promotion of the use of17

fossil fuel products while knowing the dangers associated with them, had the purpose and effect18

of unduly and substantially inflating and sustaining the market for fossil fuels while19

misrepresenting and concealing the hazards of those products to deceive consumers and the20

public about the consequences of everyday use of fossil fuel products. Defendants’ tortious and21

deceptive conduct caused an enormous, foreseeable, and avoidable increase in anthropogenic

22

GHG emissions and accelerated global warming, bringing devastating consequences to the State23

and its people. While Defendants have promoted and/or profited from the extraction and24

consumption of fossil fuels, the State and its residents have spent, and will continue to spend,

25billions of dollars to recover from climate change-induced superstorms and wildfires; will have to26

allocate and manage dwindling water supplies in extreme drought; will have to fortify state27

infrastructure against sea level rise and coastal and inland flooding; and will have to protect28
5Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

California’s people, infrastructure, and natural resources from extreme heat and many other2

climate change hazards.

3

6.

Defendants’ deceptive and tortious conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about

4

these devastating climate change impacts in California, including, but not limited to, extreme

5heat, more frequent and intense droughts, increasingly severe wildfires, more frequent and intense6storms and associated flooding, degradation of air and water quality, damage to agriculture, sea

7level rise, and habitat and species loss. As a direct result of Defendants’ egregious misconduct,

8

the State has incurred significant climate change harms, and will continue to incur such harms

9

into the future. The associated consequences of these physical and environmental changes are felt

10

throughout every part of the State, across all ecosystems and communities, and can be

11

compounded in frontline communities, which often disproportionately bear the burden of climate

12

impacts. 2

13

7.

Defendants’ individual and collective conduct was a substantial factor in bringing

14

about the State’s climate-related injuries. Defendants’ knowing concealment and15

misrepresentation of fossil fuels’ dangers—together with the affirmative promotion of

16

unrestrained fossil fuel use—drove fossil fuel consumption and delayed the transition to a lower-

17

carbon future, resulting in greater greenhouse gas pollution, accelerated global warming, and18

more dire impacts from the climate crisis in California and elsewhere.

19

8.

The scale of the devastating public nuisance created by Defendants’ egregious

20

misconduct is truly staggering, and California will be dealing with the consequences of this21

misconduct for many generations. The State respectfully requests that this Court order Defendants

22

to abate the massive public nuisance they created, contributed to, and/or assisted in the creation

23

of, and that this Court use its equitable powers to order Defendants to mitigate future harm to the24environment and people of California attributable to Defendants’ unlawful actions, including, but

25

not limited to, by granting preliminary and permanent equitable relief. The State further

26
27
28

2

“Frontline communities” are those that are and will continue to be disproportionately
impacted by climate change. In many cases, the most harmed are the same communities that havehistorically experienced racial, social, health, and economic inequities.
6
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

respectfully requests that this Court order Defendants to pay damages, statutory penalties, and2

restitution.

3

II.

PARTIES

4A.

Plaintiff

5

9.

Plaintiff is the People of the State of California. This civil enforcement action is

6

prosecuted on behalf of the People by and through Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California,

7

under the Attorney General’s broad independent powers to enforce state laws (Cal. Const., art. V,8§ 13), and pursuant to Government Code section 12600 et seq.; Civil Code sections 3479, 3480,

93491, and 3494; Business and Professions Code sections 17203, 17204, 17206, 17535, and

10

17536; and Code of Civil Procedure sections 731 and 1021.8.

11

B.

Defendants

12

10.

Defendants include some of the largest oil and gas companies in the world, and a

13national oil and gas industry trade association. The fossil fuels produced by the defendant

14

companies (and promoted by the defendant trade association) are individually and collectively

15

responsible for the emission of billions of tons of greenhouse gases.

16

11.

When this Complaint references an act or omission of Defendants, unless specifically17

attributed or otherwise stated, such references mean that the officers, directors, agents,

18

employees, or representatives of Defendants committed or authorized such an act or omission, or

19failed to adequately supervise or properly control or direct their employees while engaged in the20

management, direction, operation or control of the affairs of Defendants, and did so while acting

21

within the scope of their employment or agency.

2223

12. Exxon Entities: Exxon Mobil Corporation; ExxonMobil Oil Corporationa.

Defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation is a New Jersey corporation headquartered24

in Spring, Texas, and has been registered to do business in California since 1972. Exxon Mobil

25

Corporation is a multinational, vertically integrated energy and chemical company and one of the26largest publicly traded international oil and gas companies in the world. Exxon Mobil

27

Corporation was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in liability to

28

Exxon Corporation; ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company; Exxon Chemical U.S.A.;
7
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

ExxonMobil Chemical Corporation; ExxonMobil Chemical U.S.A.; ExxonMobil Refining &2

Supply Corporation; Exxon Company, U.S.A.; Standard Oil Company of New Jersey; and Mobil

3

Corporation.

4b.

Defendant ExxonMobil Oil Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Exxon

5

Mobil Corporation, acts on Exxon Mobil Corporation’s behalf, and is subject to Exxon Mobil

6

Corporation’s control. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation is a New York corporation headquartered in

7

Spring, Texas, and has been registered to do business in California since 1959. ExxonMobil Oil

8

Corporation was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in liability to

9

Mobil Oil Corporation. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation is engaged in the business of oil and natural

10

gas production, refining, marketing, and distribution.

11c.

Exxon Mobil Corporation controls and has controlled company-wide decisions

12

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

13

subsidiaries. Exxon Mobil Corporation’s 2022 Form 10-K filed with the United States Securities

14

and Exchange Commission represents that its success, including its “ability to mitigate risk and15

provide attractive returns to shareholders, depends on [its] ability to successfully manage [its]16

overall portfolio, including diversification among types and locations of [its] projects, products

17

produced, and strategies to divest assets.” Exxon Mobil Corporation determines whether and to18

what extent its subsidiaries market, produce, and/or distribute fossil fuel products.

19d.

Exxon Mobil Corporation controls and has controlled company-wide decisions,20

including those of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, GHG emissions and climate

21

change resulting from the company’s fossil fuel products, and communications strategies

22

concerning climate change and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related impacts on the23

environment and humans. Exxon Mobil Corporation’s Board holds the highest level of direct

24

responsibility for climate change policy within the company. Exxon Mobil Corporation’s

25

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, its President, and the other members of its

26

Management Committee have been actively engaged in discussions relating to GHG emissions

27

and the risks of climate change on an ongoing basis. Exxon Mobil Corporation requires its

28
8Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

subsidiaries, when seeking funding for capital investments, to provide estimates of project costs

2

related to GHG emissions.

3e.

Defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, and their4

predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions, are collectively referred5

to herein as “Exxon.”

6
7
8

f.

The State’s claims against Exxon arise out of and are related to the acts andomissions of Exxon in California and elsewhere that caused and will cause injuries in California.
g.

Exxon consists of numerous divisions and affiliates in all areas of the fossil fuel9

industry, including exploration for and production of crude oil and natural gas; manufacture of

10

petroleum products; and transportation, promotion, marketing, and sale of crude oil, natural gas,11

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

12

petrochemical products.

13h.

Exxon has purposefully directed its tortious conduct toward California by

14

distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting, and supplying its fossil fuel products in

15

California, with knowledge that the intended use of those products for combustion has caused and16will continue to cause climate change-related harms in California, including the State’s injuries.

17

Exxon’s statements in California and elsewhere made in furtherance of its campaign of deception

18

about and denial of climate change, and Exxon’s affirmative promotion of its fossil fuel products19

as safe with knowledge of how the intended use of those products would cause climate change-

20

related harms, were designed to conceal and mislead consumers and the public, including the21

State and its residents, about the serious adverse consequences that would result from continued22

use of Exxon’s products. That conduct was purposefully directed to reach and influence the State23

and its residents to continue unabated use of Exxon’s fossil fuel products in California, thereby

24

resulting in the State’s injuries.

25

i.

Over the past several decades and continuing to the present day, Exxon spent

26

millions of dollars on radio, television, online, social media, and outdoor advertisements in the27

California market related to its fossil fuel products. Since at least 1972, and continuing to the28

present day, Exxon has advertised its fossil fuel products in print publications circulated widely to
9Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

California consumers, including but not limited to: The Atlantic, Life, National Geographic, The

2

New York Times, People, Sports Illustrated, Time, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington

3

Post. As further detailed herein, these include advertisements containing false or misleading

4

statements, misrepresentations, and/or material omissions designed to hide the connection

5

between the production and use of Exxon’s fossil fuel products and climate change, and/or

6

misrepresenting Exxon’s products or Exxon itself as environmentally friendly.

7

j.

Significant quantities of Exxon’s fossil fuel products are or have been

8transported, traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in

9

California, from which activities Exxon derives and has derived substantial revenue. Exxon owns

10

and operates a petroleum storage and transport facility in the San Ardo Oil Field in San Ardo,

11

California. Exxon and its predecessors owned and operated an oil refinery in Torrance, California

12from 1966 to 2016, shortly after an explosion disabled the refinery. Exxon Co. USA, an

13

ExxonMobil subsidiary, operated a petroleum refinery in Benicia, California, from 1968 to 2000.

14

Exxon also—both directly and through its subsidiaries and/or predecessors-in-interest—has

15

supplied substantial quantities of fossil fuel products to California during the period relevant to16

this Complaint. Currently, Exxon promotes, markets, and sells gasoline and other fossil fuel17

products to California consumers through approximately 600 Exxon- and Mobil-branded

18

petroleum service stations in California. During the period relevant to this Complaint, Exxon sold19

a substantial percentage of all retail gasoline in California. Exxon also markets and sells

20

petroleum products, including engine lubricants and motor oils sold under the “Mobil 1” brand21

name, to California customers through local retailers.

22

k.

Exxon historically directed its fossil fuel product advertising, marketing, and23

promotional campaigns to California residents, including through maps that identify the locations

24of its service stations in California. To this day, Exxon continues to market and advertise its fossil

25

fuel products in California to California residents by maintaining an interactive website available

26

to prospective customers that directs California residents to Exxon’s nearby retail service stations

27

and lubricant distributors. Further, Exxon promotes its products in California by regularly

28

updating and actively promoting its mobile device application, “Exxon Mobil Rewards+,”
10Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1throughout the State of California, which encourages California users to consume fuel at Exxon

2

stations in California in exchange for rewards on every fuel purchase.

3
4

13.

Shell Entities: Shell plc; Shell USA, Inc.; Shell Oil Products Company LLC
a.

Defendant Shell plc (formerly Royal Dutch Shell PLC) is a vertically integrated

5

multinational energy and petrochemical company. Shell plc is incorporated in England and6Wales, with its headquarters and principal place of business in The Hague, Netherlands. Shell plc

7

is the ultimate parent company of numerous divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates, referred to8collectively as the “Shell Group,” that engage in all aspects of fossil fuel production, including

9

exploration, development, extraction, manufacturing and energy production, transport, trading,10

marketing, and sales.

11b.

Shell plc controls and has controlled company-wide decisions about the12quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its subsidiaries. Shell

13

plc’s Board of Directors determines whether and to what extent Shell subsidiary holdings around14

the globe produce Shell-branded fossil fuel products.

15c.

Shell plc controls and has controlled company-wide decisions, including those16

of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, GHG emissions and climate change resulting

17

from the company’s fossil fuel products, and communications strategies concerning climate

18

change and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related impacts on the environment and19

humans. Overall accountability for climate change within the Shell Group lies with Shell plc’s

20

Chief Executive Officer and Executive Committee. For instance, at least as early as 1988, Shell

21

plc, through its predecessors and subsidiaries, was researching company-wide CO2 emissions and22

concluded that the Shell Group accounted for 4% of the CO2 emitted worldwide from23

combustion, and that climatic changes could compel the Shell Group, as controlled by Shell plc,

24

to examine the possibilities of expanding and contracting its business accordingly.

25d.

Defendant Shell USA, Inc. (formerly Shell Oil Company) is a wholly owned

26

subsidiary of Shell plc that acts on Shell plc’s behalf and is subject to Shell plc’s control. Shell

27

USA, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas.

28

Shell USA, Inc. has been registered to do business in California since 1949. Shell USA, Inc. was
11Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in liability to Shell Oil

2Company; Shell Oil; Deer Park Refining LP; Shell Oil Products US; Shell Chemical LP; Shell

3

Trading (US) Company; Shell Energy Resources Company; Shell Energy Services Company,

4

L.L.C.; The Pennzoil Company; and Pennzoil-Quaker State Company.

5e.

Defendant Shell Oil Products Company LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of

6

Shell USA, Inc., that acts on Shell USA, Inc.’s behalf and is subject to Shell USA, Inc.’s control.

7

Shell Oil Products Company LLC is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business8

in Houston, Texas, and has been registered to do business in California since 2001. Shell Oil

9

Products Company LLC was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor

10

in liability to Shell Oil Products Company, which was a Delaware corporation that converted to a11

limited liability company in 2001.

12f.

Defendants Shell plc, Shell USA, Inc., Shell Oil Products Company LLC, and13

their predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions are collectively

14

referred to herein as “Shell.”

15

g.

16
17

The State’s claims against Shell arise out of and are related to the acts andomissions of Shell in California and elsewhere that caused and will cause injuries in California.
h.

Shell has purposefully directed its tortious conduct toward California by

18

distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting, and supplying its fossil fuel products in

19

California, with knowledge that the intended use of those products for combustion has caused and20

will continue to cause climate change-related harms in California, including the State’s injuries.

21

Shell’s statements in California and elsewhere made in furtherance of its campaign of deception

22

about and denial of climate change, and Shell’s affirmative promotion of its fossil fuel products23

as safe with knowledge of how the intended use of those products would cause climate change-

24

related harms, were designed to conceal these harms and mislead consumers and the public,25

including the State and its residents, about the serious adverse consequences that would result

26

from continued use of Shell’s products. That conduct was purposefully directed to reach and27

influence the State and its residents, to continue unabated use of Shell’s fossil fuel products in

28

California, thereby resulting in the State’s injuries.
12
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1i.

Over the last several decades and continuing to the present day, Shell spent

2

millions of dollars on radio, television, online, social media, and outdoor advertisements in the3

California market related to its fossil fuel products. Since at least 1970, and continuing to the4present day, Shell has advertised its fossil fuel products in print publications circulated widely to

5

California consumers, including but not limited to the following: The Atlantic, The Economist,

6

Life, National Geographic, Newsweek, The New York Times, Sports Illustrated, Time Magazine,

7

The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. As further detailed herein, these include

8

advertisements containing false or misleading statements, misrepresentations, and/or material

9omissions obfuscating the connection between the production and use of Shell’s fossil fuel10

products and climate change, and/or misrepresenting Shell’s products or Shell itself as

11

environmentally friendly.

12

j.

Significant quantities of Shell’s fossil fuel products are or have been

13

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

14

California, from which activities Shell derives and has derived substantial revenue. Shell

15

conducts and controls, either directly or through franchise agreements, retail fossil fuel sales at

16

gas station locations throughout California, at which locations it promotes, advertises, and sells its

17

fossil fuel products under its Shell brand name. Shell operates over 1,000 Shell-branded

18

petroleum service stations in California. During the period relevant to this Complaint, Shell sold a19substantial percentage of all retail gasoline sold in California. Shell also supplies, markets, and20

promotes its Pennzoil line of lubricants at retail and service stations throughout California. From

21

1924 to 1992, Shell owned and operated an oil refinery in Carson, California, where it now owns

22

and operates the property as a distribution facility for petroleum and petroleum products

23

throughout Southern California. From 1915 to 2020, Shell owned and operated an oil refinery in

24

Martinez, California. From 1998-2007, Shell owned and operated an oil refinery in Wilmington,

25

California. From 1998 to 2005, Shell owned and operated an oil refinery in Bakersfield,

26

California.

27
28

k.

Shell historically directed its fossil fuel product advertising, marketing, andpromotional campaigns to California, including through maps that identified the locations of its
13
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1service stations in California. Shell markets and advertises its fossil fuel products in California to2

California residents by maintaining an interactive website available to prospective customers by3

which it directs California residents to Shell’s nearby retail service stations. Shell offers a4

proprietary credit card known as the “Shell Fuel Rewards Card,” which allows consumers in

5

California to pay for gasoline and other products at Shell-branded service stations, and which

6

encourages consumers to use Shell-branded gas stations by offering various rewards, including

7

discounts on gasoline purchases. Shell further maintains a smartphone application known as the8“Shell US App” that offers California consumers a cashless payment method for gasoline and9other products at Shell-branded service stations. California consumers utilize the payment method

10by providing their credit card information through the application. California consumers can also

11

receive rewards, including discounts on gasoline purchases, by registering their personal

12

identifying information in the Shell US App and using the application to identify and activate gas

13

pumps at Shell service stations during a purchase.

14
15

14.

Chevron Entities: Chevron Corporation; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
a.

Defendant Chevron Corporation is a multinational, vertically integrated energy

16

and chemicals company incorporated in Delaware, with its global headquarters and principal

17

place of business in San Ramon, California. Chevron Corporation, through its predecessor

18

Standard Oil Company of California, has been registered to do business in California since 1926.

19

Chevron Corporation was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in20

liability to Standard Oil Company of California (also known as “Socal”), Texaco Inc., and21

ChevronTexaco Corporation.

22b.

Chevron Corporation operates through a web of United States and international

23

subsidiaries at all levels of the fossil fuel supply chain. Chevron Corporation and its subsidiaries’

24

operations include, but are not limited to: exploration, development, production, storage,25

transportation, and marketing of crude oil and natural gas; refining crude oil into petroleum

26

products and marketing those products; and manufacturing and marketing commodity

27

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

28
14
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1c.

Chevron Corporation controls and has controlled company-wide decisions

2

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

3

subsidiaries. Chevron Corporation determines whether and to what extent its corporate holdings

4market, produce, and/or distribute fossil fuel products.

5d.

Chevron Corporation controls and has controlled company-wide decisions,

6

including those of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, GHG emissions and climate

7

change resulting from the company’s fossil fuel products, and communications strategies

8

concerning climate change and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related impacts on the9environment and humans. Overall accountability for climate change within Chevron Corporation

10

lies with Chevron Corporation’s Board of Directors and Executive Committee.

11e.

Defendant Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron

12

Corporation that acts on Chevron Corporation’s behalf and is subject to Chevron Corporation’s

13

control. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation, with its principal place of business in

14

San Ramon, California. Through its predecessors, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. has been registered to do

15

business in California since 1965. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. was formerly known as, did or does

16

business as, and/or is the successor in liability to Gulf Oil Corporation, Gulf Oil Corporation of

17

Pennsylvania, Chevron Products Company, and Chevron Chemical Company, and Chevron

18

Chemical Company LLC.

19

f.

Defendants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc., together with their20

predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions, are collectively referred21

to herein as “Chevron.”

22g.

The State’s claims against Chevron arise out of and are related to the acts and23

omissions of Chevron in California and elsewhere that caused and will cause injuries in

24

California.

25h.

Chevron has purposefully directed its tortious conduct toward California by

26

distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting, and supplying its fossil fuel products in

27

California, with knowledge that the intended use of those products for combustion has caused and28

will continue to cause climate change-related harms in California, including the State’s injuries.
15
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

Chevron’s statements in California and elsewhere made in furtherance of its campaign of2

deception about and denial of climate change, and Chevron’s affirmative promotion of its fossil

3

fuel products as safe with knowledge of how the intended use of those products would cause

4

climate change-related harms, were designed to conceal and mislead consumers and the public,5

including the State and its residents, about the serious adverse consequences that would result

6

from continued use of Chevron’s products. That conduct was purposefully directed to reach and7influence the State and its residents to continue unabated use of Chevron’s fossil fuel products in

8

California, thereby resulting in the State’s injuries.

9i.

Over the last several decades and continuing to the present day, Chevron spent

10

millions of dollars on radio, television, online, social media, and outdoor advertisements in the11

California market related to its fossil fuel products. Since at least 1970, and continuing to the12present day, Chevron has advertised in print publications circulated widely to California

13

consumers, including but not limited to the following: The Atlantic, Life, National Geographic,

14

The New York Times, Sports Illustrated, Time Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, and The

15

Washington Post. As further detailed herein, these include advertisements containing false or16

misleading statements, misrepresentations, and/or material omissions obfuscating the connection

17

between the production and use of Chevron’s fossil fuel products and climate change, and/or

18

misrepresenting Chevron’s products or Chevron itself as environmentally friendly.

19

j.

Significant quantities of Chevron’s fossil fuel products are or have been

20

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

21

California, from which activities Chevron derives and has derived substantial revenue. Chevron

22

conducts and controls, either directly or through franchise agreements, retail fossil fuel sales at

23

gas station locations throughout California, at which locations it promotes, advertises, and sells its

24

fossil fuel products under its various brand names, including Chevron, Texaco, and other brand25

names. Chevron operates over 1,500 Chevron-branded petroleum service stations in California.

26

Chevron has owned and operated an oil refinery in Richmond, California, since 1902, and has

27

owned and operated an oil refinery in El Segundo, California, since 1911. During the period28
16Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

relevant to this Complaint, Chevron sold a substantial percentage of all retail gasoline sold in2

California.

3k.

Chevron historically directed its fossil fuel product advertising, marketing, and4promotional campaigns to California, including through maps that identified the locations of its

5

service stations in California. Chevron markets and advertises its fossil fuel products in California

6

to California residents by maintaining an interactive website available to prospective customers

7

by which it directs California residents to Chevron’s nearby retail service stations. Chevron

8markets and sells engine lubricants and motor oils to California customers under its Delo,

9

IsoClean, Techron, and Havoline brand names at retail outlets. Chevron offers a proprietary credit

10

card known as the “Chevron Techron Advantage Credit Card,” which allows consumers in

11

California to pay for gasoline and other products at Chevron-branded service stations, and which

12

encouraged California consumers to use Chevron-branded service stations by offering various

13

rewards, including discounts on gasoline purchases at Chevron service stations and cash rebates.

14

Chevron further maintains two smartphone applications known as the “Chevron App” and the15“Texaco App,” both part of the “Chevron Texaco Rewards” program. The program offers

16

California consumers a cashless payment method for gasoline and other products at Chevron- and17

Texaco-branded service stations. California consumers utilize the payment method by providing

18

their credit card information through the application. California consumers can also receive

19

rewards, including discounts on gasoline purchases, by registering their personal identifying

20

information in the apps and by using the applications to identify and activate gas pumps at

21

Chevron and Texaco service stations during a purchase.

22

15.

ConocoPhillips Entities: ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips Company, Phillips 66,

23

Phillips 66 Company

24a.

Defendant ConocoPhillips is a multinational energy company incorporated in

25

Delaware, with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. ConocoPhillips consists of

26

numerous divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates that execute ConocoPhillips’s fundamental

27

decisions related to all aspects of fossil fuel production, including exploration, extraction,

28

production, manufacture, transport, and marketing.
17
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1b.

ConocoPhillips controls and has controlled company-wide decisions about the2quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its subsidiaries.

3

ConocoPhillips determines whether and to what extent its corporate holdings market, produce,4

and/or distribute fossil fuel products. ConocoPhillips’s most recent annual report to the Securities

5and Exchange Commission subsumes the operations of ConocoPhillips’s subsidiaries. In

6

ConocoPhillips’s Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for Fiscal Year7

2022, the company represents that its value—for which ConocoPhillips maintains ultimate

8

responsibility—is a function of its decisions to direct subsidiaries to develop crude oil, bitumen,

9natural gas, and natural gas liquids from ConocoPhillips’s reserves into fossil fuel products and to10

explore for and replace those reserves with more fossil fuels: “Unless we successfully develop

11

resources, the scope of our business will decline, resulting in an adverse impact to our

12business. . . . If we are not successful in replacing the resources we produce with good prospects

13

for future organic development or through acquisitions, our business will decline.”

14

ConocoPhillips optimizes the ConocoPhillips group’s oil and gas portfolio to fit ConocoPhillips’s

15strategic plan. For example, in November 2016, ConocoPhillips announced a plan to generate $5

16billion to $8 billion of proceeds over two years by optimizing its business portfolio, including its

17

fossil fuel product business, to focus on low cost-of-supply fossil fuel production projects that18

strategically fit its development plans.

19c.

ConocoPhillips controls and has controlled company-wide decisions, including

20

those of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, GHG emissions and climate change

21

resulting from the company’s fossil fuel products, and communications strategies concerning

22

climate change and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related impacts on the23

environment and humans. For instance, ConocoPhillips’s Board of Directors has the highest level24

of direct responsibility for climate change policy within the company. ConocoPhillips has

25

developed and purportedly implements a corporate Climate Change Action Plan to govern

26

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

27
28

d.

Defendant ConocoPhillips Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of

ConocoPhillips that acts on ConocoPhillips’s behalf and is subject to ConocoPhillips’s control.
18
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

ConocoPhillips Company is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in2

Houston, Texas, and has been registered to do business in California since 1947. ConocoPhillips

3Company was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in liability to4Phillips Petroleum Company.

5e.

Defendant Phillips 66 is a multinational energy and petrochemical company

6

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

7

downstream fossil fuel processing, refining, transport, and marketing segments that were formerly

8

owned and/or controlled by ConocoPhillips.

9f.

Defendant Phillips 66 Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Phillips 66

10that acts on Phillips 66’s behalf and is subject to Phillips 66’s control. Phillips 66 Company is

11

incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas, and has been

12

registered to do business in California since 2011. Phillips 66 Company had been registered since13

1964 under a different name, Phillips Chemical Company, which was a wholly owned subsidiary

14of the Phillips Petroleum Company. Phillips Chemical Company changed its name to Phillips 66

15

Company in 1985, and that iteration of Phillips 66 Company was terminated in 1991. Phillips 66

16

Company was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in liability to17Phillips Petroleum Company; Phillips Chemical Company; Conoco, Inc.; Tosco Corporation; and18

Tosco Refining Co.

19

g.

Defendants ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips Company, Phillips 66, and Phillips

20

66 Company, as well as their predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and21

divisions, are collectively referred to herein as “ConocoPhillips.”

22h.

The State’s claims against ConocoPhillips arise out of and are related to the acts23

and omissions of ConocoPhillips in California and elsewhere that caused and will cause injuries

24

in California.

25i.

ConocoPhillips has purposefully directed its tortious conduct toward California

26

by distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting, and supplying its fossil fuel products in

27

California, with knowledge that the intended use of those products for combustion has caused and28

will continue to cause climate change-related harms in California, including the State’s injuries.
19
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

ConocoPhillips’s statements in California and elsewhere made in furtherance of its campaign of2

deception about and denial of climate change, and ConocoPhillips’s affirmative promotion of its

3

fossil fuel products as safe with knowledge of how the intended use of those products would

4

cause climate change-related harms, were designed to conceal and mislead consumers and the5public, including the State and its residents, about the serious adverse consequences that would

6

result from continued use of ConocoPhillips’s products. That conduct was purposefully directed7

to reach and influence the State and its residents to continue unabated use of ConocoPhillips’s

8

fossil fuel products in California, thereby resulting in the State’s injuries.

9j.

Over the last several decades and continuing to the present day, ConocoPhillips

10spent millions of dollars on radio, television, online, social media, and outdoor advertisements in

11

the California market related to its fossil fuel products. Since at least 1970, and continuing to the12present day, ConocoPhillips has advertised in print publications circulated widely to California

13

consumers, including but not limited to the following: The Atlantic, Life, National Geographic,

14

Newsweek, The New York Times, People, Sports Illustrated, Time Magazine, The Wall Street

15

Journal, and The Washington Post. As further detailed herein, these include advertisements

16

containing false or misleading statements, misrepresentations, and/or material omissions

17

obfuscating the connection between the production and use of ConocoPhillips’s fossil fuel18

products and climate change, and/or misrepresenting ConocoPhillips’s products or

19

ConocoPhillips itself as environmentally friendly.

20k.

Significant quantities of ConocoPhillips’s fossil fuel products are or have been

21

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

22

California, from which activities ConocoPhillips derives and has derived substantial revenue.

23

ConocoPhillips conducts and controls, either directly or through franchise agreements, retail24

fossil fuel sales at gas station locations throughout California, at which locations it promotes,

25

advertises, and sells its fossil fuel products under its various brand names, including Conoco,26

Phillips 66, and 76. ConocoPhillips also markets and sells to California customers at retail outlets

27

engine lubricants and motor oils under its Phillips 66, Kendall, and Red Line brand names.

28

ConocoPhillips operates hundreds of 76-branded petroleum service stations throughout
20
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

California. During the period relevant to this Complaint, ConocoPhillips sold a substantial

2

percentage of all retail gasoline sold in California.

3l.

ConocoPhillips does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in

4

California, and a substantial quantity of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported,

5

traded, distributed, marketed, and/or sold in California. For instance, ConocoPhillips owns and/or

6

operates oil and natural gas terminals in Richmond and Los Angeles, California; owns and7

operates oil refineries in Arroyo Grande, Colton, and Wilmington, California; and distributes

8

ConocoPhillips fossil fuel products throughout California. Phillips 66 also owns and operates oil

9refineries in Rodeo, Santa Maria, and Los Angeles, California. All of these refineries were owned

10

and operated by ConocoPhillips and its predecessors-in-interest from 1997 to 2012.

11m.

ConocoPhillips has historically directed its fossil fuel product advertising,12

marketing, and promotional campaigns to California, including through maps identifying its

13

services throughout California. ConocoPhillips markets and advertises its fossil fuel products in

14

California to California residents by maintaining an interactive website available to prospective

15

customers by which it directs California residents to ConocoPhillips’s nearby retail service

16

stations. ConocoPhillips offers a proprietary credit card known as the “76 Credit Card,” which

17

allows consumers in California to pay for gasoline and other products at 76-branded service

18

stations, and which encourages California consumers to use 76-branded service stations by

19

offering various rewards, including discounts on gasoline purchases at 76-branded service

20

stations and cash rebates. ConocoPhillips further maintains a nationwide smartphone application

21

known as the “Fuel Forward App.” The application offers California consumers a cashless

22

payment method for gasoline and other products at 76-branded service stations. California

23

consumers utilize the payment method by providing their credit card information through the24application. California consumers can also apply for a 76 Credit Card through the application. By

25

registering their personal identifying information in the application and by using the application

26

to identify and activate gas pumps at 76-branded service stations, California consumers can27

receive additional rewards, such as further discounts on ConocoPhillips gasoline purchases.

28
21
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1
2

16.

BP Entities: BP p.l.c., BP America Inc.
a.

Defendant BP p.l.c. is a multinational, vertically integrated energy and3petrochemical public limited company registered in England and Wales, with its principal place4of business in London, England. BP p.l.c. consists of three main operating segments: (1)5

exploration and production, (2) refining and marketing, and (3) gas power and renewables. BP

6

p.l.c. is the ultimate parent company of numerous subsidiaries, including Atlantic Richfield

7

Company, referred to collectively herein as the “BP Group,” which explore for and extract oil and8gas worldwide; refine oil into fossil fuel products such as gasoline; and market and sell oil, fuel,9

other refined petroleum products, and natural gas worldwide. BP p.l.c.’s subsidiaries explore for10

oil and natural gas under a wide range of licensing and other contractual agreements. BP p.l.c.

11

was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in liability to British

12

Petroleum Company, British Petroleum Company p.l.c., BP Amoco p.l.c., Amoco Corporation,

13

and Atlantic Richfield Company.

14b.

BP p.l.c. controls and has controlled company-wide decisions about the15

quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its subsidiaries. BP p.l.c.

16

is the ultimate decision-maker with respect to fundamental decisions about the BP Group’s core17

business, e.g., the level of fossil fuel production companywide, including production among BP

18

p.l.c.’s subsidiaries. For instance, BP p.l.c. reported that in 2016-17, it brought online 13 major

19

exploration and production projects. These contributed to a 12% increase in the BP Group’s

20

overall fossil fuel product production. These projects were carried out by BP p.l.c.’s subsidiaries.

21

Based on these projects, BP p.l.c. noted that it expected the BP Group to deliver to customers

22

900,000 barrels of new product per day by 2021. BP p.l.c. further reported that in 2017 it

23

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

24c.

BP p.l.c. controls and has controlled company-wide decisions, including those25

of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, GHG emissions and climate change resulting

26

from the company’s fossil fuel products, and communications strategies concerning climate

27

change and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related impacts on the environment and28

humans. BP p.l.c. makes fossil fuel production decisions for the entire BP Group based on factors
22
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1including climate change. BP p.l.c.’s Board of Directors is the highest decision-making body2

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

3

p.l.c.’s chief executive is responsible for maintaining the BP Group’s system of internal control

4that governs the BP Group’s business conduct. BP p.l.c.’s senior leadership directly oversees a5“carbon steering group,” which manages climate change-related matters and consists of two

6

committees—both overseen directly by the Board of Directors—that focus on climate change-

7

related investments.

8d.

Defendant BP America Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of BP p.l.c. that acts

9

on BP p.l.c.’s behalf and is subject to BP p.l.c.’s control. BP America Inc. is a vertically10

integrated energy and petrochemical company incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its

11

headquarters and principal place of business in Houston, Texas, and has been registered to do

12business in California since 2000. BP America Inc. consists of numerous divisions and affiliates

13

in all aspects of fossil fuel production, including exploration for and production of crude oil and14

natural gas; manufacture of petroleum products; and transportation, marketing, and sale of crude

15

oil, natural gas, and petroleum products. BP America Inc. was formerly known as, did or does

16

business as, and/or is the successor in liability to Amoco Oil Company; Amoco Production

17

Company; ARCO Products Company; BP Exploration & Oil, Inc.; BP Products North America

18

Inc.; BP Amoco Corporation; BP Oil, Inc.; BP Oil Company; Sohio Oil Company; Standard Oil

19

of Ohio (SOHIO); Standard Oil (Indiana); and Atlantic Richfield Company (a Pennsylvania

20

Corporation) and its division, the Arco Chemical Company.

21e.

Defendants BP p.l.c. and BP America Inc., together with their predecessors,

22

successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions, are collectively referred to herein as

23

“BP.”

24

f.

The State’s claims against BP arise out of and are related to the acts and25omissions of BP in California and BP’s actions elsewhere that caused and will cause injuries in

26

California.

27
28

g.

BP has purposefully directed its tortious conduct toward California by

distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting, and supplying its fossil fuel products in
23
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

California, with knowledge that the intended use of those products for combustion have caused2

and will continue to cause climate change-related harms in California, including the State’s

3

injuries. BP’s statements in California and elsewhere made in furtherance of its campaign of4

deception about and denial of climate change, and BP’s affirmative promotion of its fossil fuel5

products as safe with knowledge of how the intended use of those products would cause climate

6change-related harms, were designed to conceal and mislead consumers and the public, including

7

the State and its residents, about the serious adverse consequences that would result from8

continued use of BP’s products. That conduct was purposefully directed to reach and influence

9

the State and its residents to continue unabated use of BP’s fossil fuel products in California,

10

thereby resulting in the State’s injuries.

11h.

Over the last several decades and continuing to the present day, BP—especially12

BP p.l.c.—spent millions of dollars on radio, television, online, social media, and outdoor

13

advertisements in the California market related to its fossil fuel products. Since at least 1988 and14continuing to the present day, BP has advertised in print publications circulated widely to

15

California consumers, including but not limited to the following: The Atlantic, Life, Newsweek,16

The New York Times, Sports Illustrated, Time, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington

17

Post. As further detailed herein, these include advertisements containing false or misleading

18

statements, misrepresentations, and/or material omissions obfuscating the connection between the

19

production and use of BP’s fossil fuel products and climate change, and/or misrepresenting BP’s

20

products or BP itself as environmentally friendly.

21i.

Significant quantities of BP’s fossil fuel products are or have been transported,

22

traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in California, from23

which activities BP derives and has derived substantial revenue. BP conducts and controls, either

24

directly or through franchise agreements, retail fossil fuel sales at gas station locations in

25

substantial portions of California, at which locations it promotes, advertises, and sells its fossil

26

fuel products under its ARCO brand name. Among other operations, BP operates more than 300

27

ARCO-licensed and branded gas stations in California, and distributes and markets petroleum-28

based lubricants marketed under the Castrol brand name throughout California. From 2000 to
24
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

12013, BP also owned and operated an oil refinery in Carson, California. During the period2

relevant to this Complaint, BP sold a substantial percentage of all retail gasoline sold in

3

California. BP’s marketing and trading business maintains an office in Irvine, California. BP

4maintains an energy research center in San Diego, California.

5j.

BP historically directed its fossil fuel product advertising, marketing, and6

promotional campaigns to California, including through maps that identified the locations of its

7

service stations in California. BP markets and advertises its fossil fuel products in California to

8

California residents by maintaining an interactive website available to prospective customers by

9which it directs California residents to BP’s nearby retail service stations and/or lubricant

10

distributors.

11

17.

12
13
14

The Exxon, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and BP entities set forth above arecollectively referred to as the “Fossil Fuel Defendants.”
18.

American Petroleum Institutea.

Defendant American Petroleum Institute (API) is a nonprofit corporation based15

in the District of Columbia and registered to do business in California. API was created in 1919 to16

represent the American oil and gas industry as a whole. With more than 600 members, API is the17

country’s largest oil trade association. API’s purpose is to advance its members’ collective

18

business interests, which includes increasing consumer consumption of oil and gas for the19

financial profit of the Fossil Fuel Defendants and other oil and gas companies. Among other20

functions, API also coordinates members of the petroleum industry, gathers information of

21

interest to the industry, and disseminates that information to its members.

22b.

Acting on behalf of and under the supervision and control of the Fossil Fuel

23

Defendants, API has, since at least 1988, participated in and led several coalitions, front groups,

24

and organizations that have promoted disinformation about the climate impacts of fossil fuel25

products to consumers—including, but not limited to, the Global Climate Coalition, Partnership26

for a Better Energy Future, Coalition for American Jobs, Alliance for Energy and Economic

27

Growth, and Alliance for Climate Strategies. These front groups were formed to promote climate

28

disinformation and advocacy from a purportedly objective source, when in fact these groups were
25
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

financed and controlled by the Fossil Fuel Defendants and other oil and gas companies. The

2

Fossil Fuel Defendants have benefited from the spread of this disinformation because, among

3

other things, it has ensured a thriving consumer market for oil and gas, resulting in substantial

4

profits for the Fossil Fuel Defendants.

5c.

API’s stated mission includes “influenc[ing] public policy in support of a6strong, viable U.S. oil and natural gas industry,” which includes increasing consumers’

7

consumption of oil and gas for the financial benefit of the Fossil Fuel Defendants and other oil

8and gas companies. In effect, API acts and has acted as a marketing arm for its member

9companies, including the Fossil Fuel Defendants. Over the last several decades, API has spent

10

millions of dollars on television, newspaper, radio, social media, and internet advertisements in

11

the California market.

12d.

Member companies participate in API strategy, governance, and operation

13

through their membership dues and by contributing company officers and other personnel to API

14boards, committees, and task forces. The Fossil Fuel Defendants have collectively steered the15

policies and trade practices of API through membership, Executive Committee roles, and/or

16

providing budgetary funding for API. The Fossil Fuel Defendants have used their control over17

and involvement in API to develop and execute a long-term advertising and communications

18

campaign centered on climate change denialism. The goal of the campaign was to influence

19

consumer demand for the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products. The Fossil Fuel

20

Defendants directly controlled, supervised, and participated in API’s misleading messaging

21

regarding climate change.

22e.

In addition to national promotional campaigns circulated in California, API has

23

also targeted California consumers directly by creating and disseminating misleading

24

advertisements that distinctly promote consumption of fossil fuel products in California. API has

25

run numerous press releases within California touting the direct and indirect benefits to California

26of the oil and gas industries’ operations in California and elsewhere in the United States. The

27

reports, sponsored by API, on which API bases its claims, do not mention climate change at all,28

nor do the reports mention any of the direct and indirect harms to California caused by the26Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

production, marketing, sale, and use of API members’ fossil fuel products. Further, API’s

2

Department of Production sponsors two local API chapters in California, the Coastal Chapter and3

the San Joaquin Valley Chapter, which function “to promote a more cordial understanding by the4

public of the close economic relationship that exists between the petroleum industry and other5lines of business.” API also regularly hosts within California trade association events for oil and6

gas and related industries.

7f.

All of the Fossil Fuel Defendants and/or their predecessors-in-interest have8

been key API members at all times relevant to this Complaint. All of the Fossil Fuel Defendants

9

are currently members of API. Executives from Exxon, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and BP

10have served on the API Executive Committee and/or as API Chairman, essentially serving as

11

corporate officers. For example, Exxon’s CEO served on API’s Executive Committee for 15 of12

the 25 years between 1991 and 2016 (1991, 1996-1997, 2001, 2005-2016). BP’s CEO served as

13

API’s Chairman in 1988, 1989, and 1998. Chevron’s CEO served as API Chairman in 1994,

14

1995, 2003, and 2012. Shell’s President served on API’s Executive Committee from 2005 to

15

2006. ConocoPhillips Chairman and CEO Ryan Lance was API Board President from 2016 to

162018, and Exxon President and CEO Darren Woods was API Board President from 2018 to 2020.

17

In 2020, API elected Phillips 66 Chairman and CEO Greg Garland to serve a two-year term as its

18

Board President. Executives from ConocoPhillips also served as members of API’s Board of

19

Directors at various times.

20g.

Relevant information was shared among API and the Fossil Fuel Defendants

21

and the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ predecessors-in-interest through the following: (1) API’s

22

distribution of information to its members, and/or (2) participation of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’

23

officers and other personnel, and those of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ predecessors-in-interest, on

24

API boards, committees, and task forces.

25
26
27
28

h.

The State’s claims against API arise out of and are related to the acts andomissions of API in California and elsewhere that caused and will cause injuries in California.
19.

The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwiseof Defendants Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said
27
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff is2

informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is

3

responsible in some manner for the acts and occurrences herein alleged, and that the State’s

4

harms were caused by such Defendants.

5

C.

Relevant Non-Parties: Defendants’ Agents/Front Groups

6

20.

As detailed below, each Fossil Fuel Defendant had actual knowledge, or should have

7

known, that its fossil fuel products were hazardous in that the intended use of the fossil fuel8

products for combustion would substantially contribute to climate change and result in harms to

9

the State. The Fossil Fuel Defendants obtained knowledge of the hazards of their products

10

independently and through their membership and involvement in trade associations such as API.

11

21.

The Fossil Fuel Defendants and API employed, financed, and participated in several

12

industry-created front groups to serve their mission of flooding the markets with climate change

13

disinformation and denialism. These organizations, acting on behalf of and under the supervision14

and control of the Fossil Fuel Defendants, assisted the deception campaign by implementing

15

public advertising and outreach campaigns to discredit climate science, funding scientists to cast16

doubt upon climate science and upon the extent to which climate change is caused by human17

activity. In sum, the Fossil Fuel Defendants, through their front groups, engaged in a significant

18

marketing campaign that misrepresented and concealed the dangers of their fossil fuel products

19with the aim of protecting or enhancing sales of these products to consumers, including

20

consumers in California. Defendants actively supervised, facilitated, consented to, and/or directly

21

participated in the misleading messaging of these front groups, from which the Fossil Fuel

22

Defendants profited significantly, including in the form of increased sales in California.

23

22.

The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) was an industry group formed to preserve and24

expand consumer demand for fossil fuels by publicly casting doubt on climate science and25

opposing GHG emission reduction initiatives. GCC was founded in 1989 in reaction to the first26

meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body for27

assessing the science related to climate change, and to NASA scientist James Hansen’s28

presentation to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in which Hansen
28Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1emphasized that climate change was already happening and would lead to dire consequences if

2left unaddressed. GCC disbanded in or around 2001. Founding members included API, Shell Oil

3Company (currently, Shell); Texaco, Inc. (currently, Chevron); Amoco (currently, BP); ARCO

4(owned by BP at the time); and Phillips Petroleum Company (currently, ConocoPhillips). Tom

5

Lambrix, director of government relations for Phillips Petroleum, was chairman of GCC.

6

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7
8
9

23.

This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to article VI, section 10,of the California Constitution.
24.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, pursuant to Code of Civil

10

Procedure section 410.10, because each Defendant purposefully availed itself of the California

11market, and thus of the benefits of the laws of the State, during all times relevant to this12

Complaint, so as to render California courts’ exercise of jurisdiction over each Defendant13

consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Each Fossil Fuel Defendant14

researched, developed, manufactured, designed, marketed, distributed, released, promoted, and/or

15

otherwise sold its fossil fuel products in markets around the United States, including within

16

California.

17

25.

18

following reasons:19

Additionally, jurisdiction is proper over each non-resident Defendant for thea.

With respect to its subsidiaries, each non-resident Fossil Fuel Defendant parent

20

controls and has controlled decisions about the quantity and extent of its fossil fuel production

21

and sales; determines whether and to what extent to market, produce, and/or distribute its fossil

22

fuel products; and controls and has controlled decisions related to its marketing and advertising,23

specifically communications strategies concerning climate change and the link between fossil fuel24

use and impacts on the environment. Each non-resident Fossil Fuel Defendant parent has the25

power to direct and control its non-resident subsidiaries named here. Thus, each subsidiary is the26

agent of its parent. As agents, the subsidiaries of each non-resident Fossil Fuel Defendant27

conducted activities in California at the direction and for the benefit of its parent company.

28

Specifically, the subsidiaries furthered each parent company’s campaign of deception and denial
29
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1through misrepresentations, omissions, and affirmative promotion of the company’s fossil fuel2

products as safe with knowledge of the climate change-related harms that would result from the3

intended use of those products, all of which resulted in climate change-related injuries in the State4

and increased sales to the parent company. Therefore, the subsidiaries’ jurisdictional activities are5

properly attributed to each parent company and serve as a basis to assert jurisdiction over each of6

the non-resident Fossil Fuel Defendant parent companies.

7b.

Through their various agreements with dealers, franchises, or otherwise, the8

Fossil Fuel Defendants direct and control the branding, marketing, sales, promotions, image

9

development, signage, and advertising of their branded fossil fuel products at their respectively

10

branded gas stations in California, including point-of-sale advertising and marketing. The Fossil

11

Fuel Defendants dictate which grades and formulations of their gasoline may be sold at their12

respectively branded stations.

13c.

The Fossil Fuel Defendants, by and through API and other organizations like

14

GCC, conspired to conceal and misrepresent the known dangers of burning fossil fuels, to15

knowingly withhold material information regarding the consequences of using fossil fuel16

products, to spread knowingly false and misleading information to the public regarding the17weight of climate science research, and to engage in massive campaigns to promote continued

18

and increased use of their fossil fuel products, which they knew would result in injuries to the19State. Through their own actions and through their membership and participation in climate

20

denialist front groups, API and each Fossil Fuel Defendant were and are members of this21

conspiracy. Defendants committed substantial acts to further the conspiracy in California by

22

making affirmative misrepresentations to California consumers, as well as misleading them by23

omission, about the existence, causes, and effects of global warming; and by affirmatively

24

promoting the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products as safe, with knowledge of the25

disastrous impacts that would result from the intended use of those products. A substantial effect26of this conspiracy has also and will also occur in California, as the State has suffered and will27

suffer injuries from Defendants’ wrongful conduct, including but not limited to the following:

28

extreme heat, severe droughts, water shortages, catastrophic wildfires, public health injuries,
30
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

massive storms, flooding, damage to agriculture, sea level rise, coastal erosion, damage to2

ecosystems and habitat, biodiversity disruption, and other social and economic consequences of3these environmental changes. Defendants knew or should have known—based on information

4

provided to them from their internal research divisions, affiliates, trade associations, and industry

5groups—that their actions in California and elsewhere would result in these injuries in and to the6State. Finally, the climate effects described herein are direct and foreseeable results of

7

Defendants’ conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy.

826.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 393,

9subdivision (a), because the violations of law and the public nuisance alleged in this Complaint

10

occurred in San Francisco County and throughout California.

11

IV.

12

FACTUAL BACKGROUNDA.

Defendants Are Substantially Responsible for Causing and Accelerating
Climate Change

27.

The earth’s atmosphere is warming, sea level is rising, snow and ice cover is

13
14
15

diminishing, oceans are warming and acidifying, and hydrologic systems have been altered,16

among other rapidly accelerating changes to our climate. These changes are directly harming

17

people’s health, lives, lifestyles, and livelihoods. According to the IPCC, the evidence that18

humans are causing this warming of the Earth is unequivocal. 3

19

28.

Greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activities are the most significant driver20of climate change and ocean acidification. 4 Over the past couple of decades, those emission rates

21

have accelerated, exceeding those predicted under previous “worst case” global emissions

22

scenarios. The severity of the continuing impacts of climate change on California will depend on23

the success of mitigation and adaptation efforts in California and on the reduction of fossil fuel24

consumption. 5

25

3

26
27
28

IPCC, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working
Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(2021) pp. v, 4, 41, 63, 150, 425, 506, available athttps://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg1/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
4
Id. at p. 41.
5
See Bedsworth et al., Statewide Summary Report, California’s Fourth Climate Change
31
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

29.

Greenhouse gases are largely byproducts of human combustion of fossil fuels to

2

produce energy and use of fossil fuels to create petrochemical products. While there are several

3

greenhouse gases contributing to climate change, CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas emitted as a4result of human activities.

530.

Prior to World War II, most anthropogenic CO2 emissions were caused by land-use

6practices, such as forestry and agriculture, which altered the ability of the land and global

7

biosphere to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. The impacts of such activities on Earth’s climate

8

were relatively minor. Since that time, however, both the annual rate and total volume of9anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased enormously following the dramatic rise of the

10

combustion of oil, gas, and coal, in particular in transportation and the stationary energy market.

11
12

31.

The graph below illustrates that fossil fuel emissions are the dominant source ofincreases in atmospheric CO2 since the mid-twentieth century:

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Figure 1: Annual Global Emissions, 1850–2020 6

24
25
26
27
28

Assessment (2018) pp. 8-13, 20, 70, available at https://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/ (asof Sept. 14, 2023).
6
Global Carbon Project, Global Carbon Budget 2021 (Nov. 4, 2021) p. 83, available athttps://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/archive/2021/GCP_CarbonBudget_2021.pdf(as of Sept. 13, 2023).
32
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

32.

This acceleration of fossil fuel emissions has led to a correspondingly sharp rise in2

atmospheric concentration of CO2. Since 1960, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has

3

spiked from under 320 parts per million (ppm) to approximately 423 ppm. 7 The concentration of4

atmospheric CO2 has also been accelerating. From 1960 to 1970, atmospheric CO2 increased by

5

an average of approximately 0.9 ppm per year; over the last five years, it has increased by6

approximately 2.4 ppm per year. 8

7
8

33.

Figure 2 indicates the tight nexus between the sharp increase in emissions from the

combustion of fossil fuels and the steep rise of atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Figure 2: Atmospheric CO2 Concentration and Annual Emissions 9

18
19

34.

Because of the increased burning of fossil fuel products, concentrations of greenhouse20

gases in the atmosphere are now at an unprecedented level, one not seen in at least three million

21years. 10

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7

Global Monitoring Laboratory, NOAA, Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Full
Record, available at https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/mlo.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
8
Global Monitoring Laboratory, NOAA, Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, GrowthRate, available at https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
9
Lindsey, NOAA, Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (May 12, 2023),
available at https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-changeatmospheric-carbon-dioxide (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
10
More CO2 Than Ever Before in 3 Million Years, Shows Unprecedented Computer
Simulation, Science Daily (Apr. 3, 2019), available athttps://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190403155436.htm (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
33
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

35.

As greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere, the Earth radiates less energy

2back to space. This accumulation and associated disruption of the Earth’s energy balance have3

myriad environmental and physical consequences, including, but not limited to, the following:

4a.

Warming of the Earth’s average surface temperature, both locally and globally,5

and increased frequency and intensity of heat waves. To date, global average surface temperatures6

have risen approximately 1.09°C (1.96°F) above preindustrial temperatures; temperatures in

7particular locations have risen more.

8b.

Changes to the global climate generally, bringing about longer droughts and dry

9

periods interspersed with fewer and more severe periods of precipitation, and associated impacts

10

to the quantity and quality of water resources available to both human and ecological systems.

11c.

Increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events due to increases in

12

evaporation, evapotranspiration, and precipitation, a consequence of the warming atmosphere’s

13

increased ability to hold moisture.

14
15

d.

Adverse impacts on human health associated with extreme weather, extreme

heat, worsening air quality, and vector-borne illnesses.

16e.

Flooding and inundation of land and infrastructure, increased erosion, higher

17

wave run-up and tides, increased frequency and severity of storm surges, saltwater intrusion, and18other impacts of higher sea levels.

19
20

f.

runoff from melting glaciers and ice sheets.

21
22

g.

25

Ocean acidification, primarily due to the increased uptake of atmosphericcarbon dioxide by the oceans.

23
24

Sea level rise, due to the thermal expansion of warming ocean waters andh.

Changes to terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and consequent impacts on the

populations and ranges of flora and fauna.
36.

As discussed below, these consequences of Defendants’ tortious and deceptive

26

conduct and its exacerbation of the climate crisis are already impacting California, its

27communities, its people’s health, and its natural resources, and these impacts will continue to28

increase in severity. Absent Defendants’ tortious and deceptive conduct and resultant
34
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

contributions to global warming, these harmful effects would have been far less extreme than2

those currently occurring. Similarly, future harmful effects would also have been far less3

detrimental—or would have been avoided entirely. 11

437.

From at least 1965 until the present, Defendants unduly inflated the market for fossil

5

fuel products by aggressively promoting the use of these products while knowing their associated6

dangers, and by misrepresenting and concealing the hazards of those products to deceive

7

consumers and the public about the consequences of everyday use of fossil fuel products.

8

Consequently, substantially more anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been emitted into the9environment than would have been emitted absent Defendants’ tortious and deceptive conduct.

10

38.

By quantifying GHG pollution attributable to the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ products

11

and conduct, climatic and environmental responses to those emissions are also calculable and can

12

be attributed to the Fossil Fuel Defendants both on an individual and an aggregate basis. 12

13

39.

Defendants’ tortious, deceptive, and unconscionable conduct, as alleged herein,14

caused a substantial portion of the global atmospheric GHG concentrations, and the past,

15

ongoing, and future disruptions to the environment—and consequent injuries to California, its

16communities, and its resources—associated therewith.

17
18
19

40.

contributed to California’s climate crisis-related injuries.
B.

Defendants Went to Great Lengths to Understand the Dangers Associatedwith Fossil Fuel Products, and Either Knew or Should Have Known ofThose Dangers

41.

Defendants have known about the potential warming effects of GHG emissions since

20
21

Defendants, individually and collectively, have substantially and measurably22

as early as the 1950s, and they developed a sophisticated understanding of climate change that far

23

exceeded the knowledge of the general public. Although it was concealed at the time, the

24
25
26
27
28

11

See, e.g., Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for MultiMillennial Climate and Sea-Level Change (2016) 6 Nature Climate Change 360, 365 (“Ourmodelling suggests that the human carbon footprint of about [470 billion tons] by 2000 . . . hasalready committed Earth to a [global mean sea level] rise of ~1.7m (range of 1.2 to 2.2 m).”).
12
See Heede, Tracing Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Methane Emissions to Fossil
Fuel and Cement Producers, 1854–2010 (2014) 122 Climatic Change 229, available athttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
35
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

industry’s knowledge was uncovered in 2015 by journalists at Inside Climate News and the Los

2

Angeles Times, among others. 13

342.

In 1954, geochemist Harrison Brown and his colleagues at the California Institute of4

Technology wrote to API, informing the trade association of their finding that fossil fuels had

5caused atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to increase by about 5% since 1840. 14 API continued to

6fund the scientists for various research projects and measurements of carbon dioxide, but the7results were never published. 15 In 1957, H.R. Brannon of Humble Oil Company (predecessor-in-

8interest to Exxon) measured an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide attributable to fossil fuels,

9

similar to—and in agreement with—that measured by Harrison Brown. 16

10

43.

In 1959, API organized an oil industry celebration in New York City. 17 High-level oil

11

industry executives were in attendance, and one of the keynote speakers was the nuclear physicist

12

Edward Teller. Teller warned the industry that “a temperature rise corresponding to a 10[%]13

increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge . . . [a]ll the coastal

14

cities.” Teller added that since “a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal

15

regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to16

believe.” 18 Following his speech, Teller was asked to “summarize briefly the danger from

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13

See, e.g., Banerjee et al., Exxon’s Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels’ Role in
Global Warming Decades Ago, L.A. Times (Sept. 16, 2015), available athttps://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-rolein-global-warming/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023); Jennings et al., How Exxon went from leader to skeptic
on climate change research, L.A. Times (Oct. 23, 2015), available athttps://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-research (as of Sept. 13, 2023); Jerving et al., What Exxon
knew about the Earth’s melting Arctic, L.A. Times (Oct. 9, 2015), available athttps://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023); Lieberman et al., Big Oil braced
for global warming while it fought regulations, L.A. Times (Dec. 31, 2015), available athttps://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
14
Franta, Early Oil Industry Knowledge of CO2 and Global Warming (2018) 8 Nature
Climate Change 1024, 1024.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.; Brannon, Jr. et al., Radiocarbon Evidence on the Dilution of Atmospheric andOceanic Carbon by Carbon from Fossil Fuels (1957) 38 Am. Geophysical Union Transactions
643, 644-46.
17
See Nevins & Dunlop, Energy and Man: A Symposium (1960). See also Franta, Early
Oil Industry Knowledge of CO2 and Global Warming, supra, p. 1024.
18
Edward Teller, Energy Patterns of the Future, in Energy and Man: A Symposium(1960) p. 58.
36
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1increased carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere in this century.” He responded that “there is a2

possibility the icecaps will start melting and the level of the oceans will begin to rise.” 19

3

44.

In 1965, the president of API, Frank Ikard, addressed leaders of the petroleum4

industry at the trade association’s annual meeting. Ikard relayed the findings of a recent report to5

industry leaders, saying, “[o]ne of the most important predictions of the report is that carbon

6dioxide is being added to the earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas at

7

such a rate that by the year 2000 the heat balance will be so modified as possibly to cause marked

8changes in climate beyond local or even national efforts,” and quoting the report’s finding that

9“the pollution from internal combustion engines is so serious, and is growing so fast, that an

10

alternative nonpolluting means of powering automobiles, buses, and trucks is likely to become a11national necessity.” 20

12

45.

Thus, by 1965, Defendants and their predecessors-in-interest were aware that the13

scientific community had found that fossil fuel products, if their use continued to grow, would

14

cause global warming by the end of the century, and that such global warming would have wide-

15

ranging and costly consequences.

16

46.

In 1968, API received a report from the Stanford Research Institute, which it had

17

hired to assess the state of research on environmental pollutants, including carbon dioxide. 21 The

18

assessment stated: “Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000,

19

and . . . there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe.”20

The scientists warned of “melting of the Antarctic ice cap” and informed API that “[p]ast and21

present studies of CO2 are detailed and seem to explain adequately the present state of CO2 in the22

atmosphere.” What was missing, the scientists said, was work on “air pollution technology

23

and . . . systems in which CO2 emissions would be brought under control.” 22

24
25
26
27
28

19
Id. at p. 70.
20

Ikard, Meeting the Challenges of 1966, in Proceedings of the American Petroleum
Institute (1965) p. 13, available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5348130-1965API-Proceedings (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
21
Robinson & Robbins, Stanford Research Institute, Sources, Abundance, and Fate of
Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants (Feb. 1968) pp. 109-10, available athttps://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/document16 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
22
Id. at pp. 108, 112.
37
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

47.

In 1969, the Stanford Research Institute delivered a supplemental report on air

2pollution to API, projecting with alarming particularity that atmospheric CO2 concentrations

3

would reach 370 ppm by 2000. 23 This projection turned out to almost exactly match the actual

4

CO2 concentrations measured in 2000 of 369.64 ppm. 24 The report explicitly connected the rise in5

CO2 levels to the combustion of fossil fuels, finding it “unlikely that the observed rise in6

atmospheric CO2 has been due to changes in the biosphere.” 25 By virtue of their membership and7participation in API at that time, the Fossil Fuel Defendants received or should have received the8

Stanford Research Institute reports, and thus were on notice of the conclusions in those reports. 26

948.

In 1977, James Black of Exxon gave a presentation to Exxon executives on the

10“greenhouse effect,” which was summarized in an internal memo the following year. Black

11

reported that “current scientific opinion overwhelmingly favors attributing atmospheric carbon

12dioxide increase to fossil fuel consumption,” and that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide

13

would, according to the best climate model available, “produce a mean temperature increase of

14

about 2°C to 3°C over most of the earth,” with two to three times as much warming at the poles. 27

15Black reported that the impacts of global warming would include “more rainfall,” which would

16“benefit some areas and would harm others,” and that “[s]ome countries would benefit, but others

17

could have their agricultural output reduced or destroyed.” “Even those nations which are

18

favored, however, would be damaged for a while since their agricultural and industrial patterns

19

have been established on the basis of the present climate.” Finally, Black reported that “[p]resent

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

23

Robinson & Robbins, Stanford Research Institute, Sources, Abundance, and Fate of
Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants Supplement (June 1969) p. 3.
24NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Global Mean CO2 Mixing Ratios (ppm):
Observations, available at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt (as of Sept.
13, 2023).
25
Robinson & Robbins, Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric
Pollutants Supplement, supra, p. 19.
26
Abstracts of the Stanford Research Institute studies were included in a 1972 API status
report to its members. See American Petroleum Institute, Committee for Air and Water
Conservation, Environmental Research: A Status Report (Jan. 1972) p. 103, available at
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED066339.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
27
J.F. Black, Exxon Research and Engineering Co., memorandum to F.G. Turpin, Exxon
Research and Engineering Co. re The Greenhouse Effect (June 6, 1978) pp. 2, 23, available athttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805568-1978-Exxon-Presentation-on-GreenhouseEffect (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
38
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions

2

regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.” 28 The figure below, reproduced

3from Black’s memo, illustrates Exxon’s understanding of the timescale and magnitude of global

4

warming that its products would cause.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Figure 3: Future Global Warming Predicted Internally by Exxon in 1978 29

17
18

49.

In 1979, an internal Exxon memorandum stated, “The most widely held theory [about

19

the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere] is that: The increase is due to fossil fuel20

combustion; [i]ncreasing CO2 concentration will cause a warming of the earth’s surface; [and t]he21

present trend of fossil fuel consumption will cause dramatic environmental effects before the year

222050. . . . The potential problem is great and urgent.” The memo added that, if limits were not

23

placed on fossil fuel production,

24
25
26
27
28

Noticeable temperature changes would occur around 2010 as the [CO2] concentration
reaches 400 ppm. Significant climatic changes occur around 2035 when theconcentration approaches 500 ppm. A doubling of the pre-industrial concentration
28
Id. at p. 2.
29

Id. at p. 26. The company predicted global warming of 1°C to 3°C by 2050, with 10°C
warming in polar regions. The difference between the lower dashed and solid curves prior to 1977
represents global warming that Exxon believed may already have been occurring. (Ibid.)
39
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[i.e., 580 ppm] occurs around 2050. The doubling would bring about dramaticchanges in the world’s environment[.] 30
50.

Those projections proved remarkably accurate. Annual average atmospheric CO2

concentrations surpassed 400 ppm in 2015 for the first time in millions of years. 31 Limiting thecarbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere to 440 ppm, or a 50% increase over preindustrial
levels, which the Exxon memo said was “assumed to be a relatively safe level for theenvironment,” would require fossil fuel emissions to peak in the 1990s and non-fossil energy
systems to be rapidly deployed. Eighty percent of fossil fuel resources, the memo calculated,would have to be left in the ground to avoid doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.
Certain fossil fuels, such as shale oil, could not be substantially exploited at all. 32
51.

But instead of heeding these dire and repeated warnings, in November 1979,

according to internal correspondence, Exxon urged “a very aggressive defensive program in . . .
atmospheric science and climate because there is a good probability that legislation affecting ourbusiness will be passed.” 33 It urged an expanded research effort to “influence possible legislation
on environmental controls” and suggested the formation of a “small task force” to evaluate apotential program in CO2 and climate, acid rain, carcinogens, fine particulates, and other pollution
issues caused by fossil fuels. 34
52.

In 1979, API and its members, including the Fossil Fuel Defendants, convened a Task

Force to monitor and share cutting-edge climate research among members of the oil industry.
This Climate and Energy Task Force (hereinafter referred to as “CO2 Task Force”) included
senior scientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas

30

W.L. Ferrall, Exxon Research and Engineering Co., memorandum to Dr. R.L. Hirsch reControlling Atmospheric CO2 (Oct. 16, 1979) pp. 1-2, 5, available athttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mqwl0228 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
31
Jones, How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters, Yale Env’t 360(Jan. 26, 2017), available at http://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbonthreshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
32
W.L. Ferrall, Controlling Atmospheric CO2, supra, pp. 3, 6-7.
33
H. Shaw memorandum to H.N. Weinberg re Research in Atmospheric Science (Nov.
19, 1979) p. 2, available at https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yqwl0228 (as of Sept.
13, 2023).
34
Id. at pp. 1-2.
40Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1company—including Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, and Standard Oil of Ohio, as

2well as Standard Oil of California and Gulf Oil, the predecessors to Chevron—and was charged

3

with monitoring research, evaluating the implications of emerging science for the petroleum and4

gas industries, and identifying where potential reductions in GHG emissions from Defendants’

5

fossil fuel products could be made. 35

653.

In 1979, a paper prepared by API for the CO2 Task Force asserted that CO2

7

concentrations were rising, and predicted that, although global warming would occur, it would

8

likely go undetected until approximately the year 2000 because its effects were being temporarily

9masked by a natural cooling trend, which would revert to a warming trend around 1990, adding to

10

the warming caused by CO2. 36

11

54.

In 1980, at the invitation of the CO2 Task Force, climate expert J. Laurman delivered12

to API members a presentation providing a “complete technical discussion” of global warming

13

caused by fossil fuels, including “the scientific basis and technical evidence of CO2 buildup,

14

impact on society, methods of modeling and their consequences, uncertainties, policy

15

implications, and conclusions that can be drawn from present knowledge.” 37 Laurmann informed

16

the CO2 Task Force of the “scientific consensus on the potential for large future climatic response17

to increased CO2 levels” and that there was “strong empirical evidence that [the carbon dioxide]

18

rise [was] caused by anthropogenic release of CO2, mainly from fossil fuel burning.” 38 According19

to Laurmann, unless fossil fuel production and use were controlled, atmospheric carbon dioxide

20

would be twice preindustrial levels by 2038, using a 3% per annum growth of atmospheric release

21

rate, with “likely impacts” along the following trajectory:

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

35

Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too,
Inside Climate News (Dec. 22, 2015), available athttps://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-aboutclimate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco/ (as of
Sept. 13, 2023).
36
R.J. Campion memorandum to J.T. Burgess re Comments on The API’s Background
Paper on CO2 Effects (Sept. 6, 1979), available athttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lqwl0228 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
37
J. J. Nelson, American Petroleum Institute, letter to AQ-9 Task Force re The CO2
Problem; Addressing Research Agenda Development (Mar. 18, 1980) p. 2, available athttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/gffl0228 (as of Sept. 14, 2023).
38
Id. at pp. 9-10 (full capitalization in original removed).
41
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1
2

1°C RISE (2005): BARELY NOTICEABLE

3

2.5°C RISE (2038): MAJOR ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES, STRONGREGIONAL DEPENDENCE

45°C RISE (2067): GLOBALLY CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS

5

Laurmann warned the CO2 Task Force that global warming of 2.5°C would “bring[] world

6

economic growth to a halt.” The minutes of the meeting, which were distributed to the entire CO2

7

Task Force, show that one of the Task Force’s goals was “to help develop ground rules for … the8cleanup of fuels as they relate to CO2 creation,” and the Task Force discussed potential research

9

into the market and technical requirements for a worldwide “energy source changeover” away

10

from fossil fuels. 39

11

55.

In 1980, a Canadian Esso (Exxon) company reported to managers and staff at

12

affiliated Esso and Exxon companies that there was “no doubt” that fossil fuels were aggravating13

the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that “[t]echnology exists to remove CO2 from stack

14

gases but removal of only 50% of the CO2 would double the cost of power generation.” 40

15

56.

In December 1980, an Exxon manager distributed a memorandum on the “CO216

Greenhouse Effect” attributing future buildup of carbon dioxide to fossil fuel use, and explaining

17

that internal calculations indicated that atmospheric carbon dioxide could double by around 2060,

18“most likely” resulting in global warming of approximately 3.0 ± 1.5°C. 41 Calculations predicting

19

a lower temperature increase, such as 0.25°C, were “not held in high regard by the scientific20

community[.]” The memo also reported that such global warming would cause “increased21

rainfall[] and increased evaporation,” which would have a “dramatic impact on soil moisture, and22

in turn, on agriculture” and other “serious global problems[.]” The memo called for “society” to23

pay the bill, estimating that some adaptive measures would cost no more than “a few percent” of

24
25
26
27
28

39
Id. at pp. 1, 13.
40

Imperial Oil Ltd., Review of Environmental Protection Activities for 1978–1979 (Aug.
6, 1980) p. 2, available at http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2827784-1980-ImperialOil-Review-of- Environmental.html#document/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
41
Henry Shaw memorandum to T.K. Kett re Exxon Research and Engineering Company’s
Technological Forecast: CO2 Greenhouse Effect (Dec. 18, 1980) p. 3, available athttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805573-1980-Exxon-Memo-Summarizing-CurrentModels-And.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
42
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

Gross National Product. 42 Shaw also reported that Exxon had studied various responses for2

avoiding or reducing a carbon dioxide build-up, including “stopping all fossil fuel combustion at3

the 1980 rate” and “investigat[ing] the market penetration of non-fossil fuel technologies.” The4memo estimated that such non-fossil energy technologies “would need about 50 years to penetrate5

and achieve roughly half of the total [energy] market.” 43 The memo included the figure below,

6

which illustrates both the global warming anticipated by Exxon and the company’s understanding

7

that significant global warming would occur:

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Figure 4: Future Global Warming Predicted Internally by Exxon in 1980 44
57.

In February 1981, Exxon’s Contract Research Office prepared and distributed a

22“Scoping Study on CO2” to the leadership of Exxon Research and Engineering Company. 45 The

23

study reviewed Exxon’s carbon dioxide research and considered whether to expand its research

24
25
26
27
28

42
Id. at pp. 3-5.
43
Id. at pp. 5-6.
44

Id. at p. 12. The company anticipated a doubling of carbon dioxide by around 2060 andthat the oceans would delay the warming effect by a few decades, leading to approximately 3°C
warming by the end of the century.
45
G.H. Long, Exxon Research and Engineering Co., letter to P.J. Lucchesi et al. re
Atmospheric CO Scoping Study (Feb. 5, 1981),
https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yxfl0228 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
43
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

on carbon dioxide or global warming further. It recommended against expanding those research2

areas because Exxon’s current research programs were sufficient for achieving the company’s

3goals of closely monitoring federal research, building credibility and public relations value, and4developing in-house expertise regarding CO2 and global warming, and noted that Exxon

5

employees were actively monitoring and keeping the company apprised of outside research

6developments, including those on climate modeling and “CO2-induced effects.” In discussing

7“options for reducing CO2 build-up in the atmosphere,” the study noted that although capturing

8

CO2 from flue gases (i.e., exhaust gas produced by combustion) was technologically possible, the9cost was high, and “energy conservation or shifting to renewable energy sources[] represent the10

only options that might make sense.” 46

11

58.

Thus, by 1981, Exxon and other fossil fuel companies were actively monitoring all

12

aspects of CO2 and global warming research, and Exxon had recognized that a shift away from13

fossil fuels and towards renewable energy sources would be necessary to avoid a large CO2 build-14

up in the atmosphere and resultant global warming.

15

59.

An Exxon scientist warned colleagues in a 1981 internal memorandum that “future

16

developments in global data gathering and analysis, along with advances in climate modeling,17

may provide strong evidence for a delayed CO2 effect of a truly substantial magnitude,” and that18

under certain circumstances it would be “very likely that we will unambiguously recognize the19threat by the year 2000.” 47 The memo expressed concern about the potential effects of unabated

20

CO2 emissions from Defendants’ fossil fuel products, saying, “it is distinctly possible that [Exxon

21

Planning Division’s] scenario will later produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least

22

for a substantial fraction of the world’s population).” 48

23
24
25
26
27
28

60.

In 1982, another report prepared for API by climate scientists recognized that theatmospheric CO2 concentration had risen significantly compared to the concentration at the
46
Ibid.
47

R.W. Cohen memorandum to W. Glass (Aug. 18, 1981), available at
http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1981-exxon-memo-on-possible-emissionconsequences-of-fossil-fuel-consumption.
48
Ibid.
44
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

beginning of the industrial revolution. It went further, warning that “[s]uch a warming can have2

serious consequences for man’s comfort and survival since patterns of aridity and rainfall can

3change, the height of the sea level can increase considerably and the world food supply can be4

affected.” 49 Exxon’s own modeling research confirmed this. 50 In a 1982 internal memorandum,

5

Exxon’s Corporate Research and Science Laboratories acknowledged a consensus “that a

6doubling of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would result in an average

7

global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5)°C [5.4 ± 2.7 °F]” as well as “unanimous agreement in the8scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant

9changes in the earth’s climate[.]” 51

10

61.

Also in 1982, Exxon’s Environmental Affairs Manager distributed a primer on

11

climate change to Exxon management; it was “restricted to Exxon personnel and not [to be]

12

distributed externally.” 52 The primer explained the science behind climate change, confirmed

13

fossil fuel combustion as a primary anthropogenic contributor to global warming, and estimated a

14

CO2 doubling by 2090 with a “Most Probable Temperature Increase” of more than 2° C over the

15

1979 level, as shown in the figure on the following page. 53 The report also warned that16

“disturbances in the existing global water distribution balance would have dramatic impact on soil

17

moisture, and in turn, on agriculture,” and that the American Midwest would become much drier.

18

It further warned of “potentially catastrophic effects that must be considered[.]” 54 It concluded

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

49

American Petroleum Institute, Climate Models and CO2 Warming: A Selective Review
and Summary (Mar. 1982) p. 4, available at https://www.climatefiles.com/trade-group/americanpetroleum-institute/api-climate-models-and-co2-warming-a-selective-review-and-summary/ (asof Sept. 13, 2023).
50
See Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Research and Engineering Co., memorandum to A.M.
Natkin, Office of Science and Technology, Exxon Corp. (Sept. 2, 1982), available athttps://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-exxon-memo-summarizing-climate-modelingand-co2-greenhouse-effect-research/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
51
Id. at p. 1.
52
M.B. Glaser, Exxon Research and Engineering Co., memorandum to R.W. Cohen et al.
re CO2 “Greenhouse” Effect (Nov. 12, 1982) p. 1, available at https://insideclimatenews.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/09/1982-Exxon-Primer-on-CO2-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf (as of Sept. 13,2023).
53
Id. at pp. 1, 7.
54
Id. at p. 11.
45
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1that “[a]ll biological systems are likely to be affected,” and “the most severe economic effects

2

could be on agriculture.” 55

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Figure 5: Exxon’s Internal Prediction of Future CO2
Increase and Global Warming from 1982 56
62.

The report recommended studying “soil erosion, salinization, or the collapse of

irrigation systems” in order to understand how society might be affected and might respond to
global warming, as well as “[h]ealth effects” and “stress associated with climate related famine or55
Id. at p. 14.
56

Id. at p. 7. The company predicted a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrations above preindustrial levels by around 2090 (left curve), with a temperature increaseof more than 2° C over the 1979 level (right curve).
46
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

migration[.]” 57 The report estimated that undertaking “[s]ome adaptive measures” (not all of2them) would cost “a few percent of the gross national product estimated in the middle of the next

3

century” (gross national product was $25,640 billion in 2022). 58 To avoid such impacts, the report

4

discussed a scientific analysis which studied energy alternatives and requirements for introducing

5

them into widespread use, and which recommended that “vigorous development of non-fossil

6

energy sources be initiated as soon as possible.” 59 The primer also noted that the analysis

7

indicated that other greenhouse gases related to fossil fuel production, such as methane (which is8

a more powerful GHG than CO2), “may significantly contribute to a global warming,” and that

9

concerns over CO2 would be reduced if fossil fuel use were decreased due to “high price, scarcity,

10[or] unavailability.” 60 “Mitigation of the ‘greenhouse effect’ would require major reductions in

11

fossil fuel combustion,” the primer stated. 61 The primer was widely distributed to Exxon

12

leadership.

13

63.

In September 1982, the Director of Exxon’s Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences

14

Laboratory, Roger Cohen, wrote Alvin Natkin of Exxon’s Office of Science and Technology to

15summarize Exxon’s internal research on climate modeling. 62 Cohen reported:

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[O]ver the past several years a clear scientific consensus has emerged regarding
the expected climatic effects of increased atmospheric CO2. The consensus is thata doubling of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would
result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5) °C. . . . The temperaturerise is predicted to be distributed nonuniformly over the earth, with above-averagetemperature elevations in the polar regions and relatively small increases near theequator. There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that atemperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes inthe earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere.
The time required for doubling of atmospheric CO2 depends on future worldconsumption of fossil fuels. Current projections indicate that doubling will occur
sometime in the latter half of the 21st century. The models predict that CO2 climate
57
Id. at p. 14.
58

Ibid.; See Fed. Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Gross National Product (updated Mar. 30,2023), available at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GNPA (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
59
M.B. Glaser, CO2 “Greenhouse” Effect, supra, p. 18.
60
Id. at pp. 18, 29.
61
Id. at p. 2.
62
Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Research and Engineering Co., memorandum to A.M. Natkin,
Exxon Corp. Office of Science and Technology (Sept. 2, 1982), available athttps://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-exxon-memo-summarizing-climate-modelingand-co2-greenhouse-effect-research/ (as of Sept. 14, 2023).
47
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

12changes should be observable well before doubling. It is generally believed thatthe first CO2-induced temperature increase will not be observable until around theyear 2000.

3

Cohen described Exxon’s own climate modeling experiments, reporting that they produced “a4global averaged temperature increase that falls well within the range of the scientific consensus,”

5

were “consistent with the published predictions of more complex climate models,” and were “also6

in agreement with estimates of the global temperature distribution during a certain prehistoric

7

period when the earth was much warmer than today.” “In summary,” Cohen wrote, “the results of

8

our research are in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric

9

CO2 on climate.”

10

64.

Throughout the early 1980s, at Exxon’s direction, Exxon climate scientist Henry

11

Shaw forecasted emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use. Those estimates were incorporated into

12

Exxon’s twenty-first century energy projections and were distributed among Exxon’s various

13

divisions. Shaw’s conclusions included an expectation that atmospheric CO2 concentrations

14

would double in 2090 per the Exxon model, with an attendant 2.3–5.6°F average global

15

temperature increase. 63

16

65.

During the 1980s, many Defendants formed their own research units focused on

17

climate modeling. API, including the API CO2 Task Force, provided a forum for the Fossil Fuel

18

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

19

GHG emissions. 64

20

66.

In 1988, the Shell Greenhouse Effect Working Group issued a confidential internal

21

report, “The Greenhouse Effect,” which acknowledged global warming’s anthropogenic nature:22“Man-made carbon dioxide, released into and accumulated in the atmosphere, is believed to warm

23
24
25
26
27
28

63

Banerjee, More Exxon Documents Show How Much It Knew About Climate 35 Years
Ago, Inside Climate News (Dec. 1, 2015), available athttps://insideclimatenews.org/news/01122015/documents-exxons-early-co2-position-seniorexecutives-engage-and-warming-forecast/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
64
Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too,
Inside Climate News (Dec. 22, 2015), available athttps://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-aboutclimate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco/ (as of
Sept. 13, 2023).
48
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1the earth through the so-called greenhouse effect.” The authors also noted the burning of fossil

2

fuels as a primary driver of CO2 buildup and warned that warming could “create significant

3changes in sea level, ocean currents, precipitation patterns, regional temperature and weather.”

4

They further pointed to the potential for “direct operational consequences” of sea level rise on

5“offshore installations, coastal facilities and operations (e.g. platforms, harbors, refineries,

6

depots).” 65

7

67.

The Shell report noted that “by the time the global warming becomes detectable it8

could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilise the9situation.” The authors mentioned the need to consider policy changes, noting that “the potential

10

implications for the world are . . . so large that policy options need to be considered much

11

earlier,” and that research should be “directed more to the analysis of policy and energy options

12

than to studies of what we will be facing exactly.” 66

13

68.

In 1991, a researcher for Exxon’s subsidiary Imperial Oil stated to an audience of

14

engineers that greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels. . . . Nobody disputes

15

this fact.” 67

16

69.

The fossil fuel industry was at the forefront of carbon dioxide research for much of17

the latter half of the twentieth century. It worked with many of the field’s top researchers to

18

produce exceptionally sophisticated studies and models. For instance, in the mid-1990s, Shell

19

began developing and employing scenarios to plan how the company could respond to various

20

global forces in the future. In one scenario, published in a 1998 internal report, Shell paints an

21

eerily prescient scene:
In 2010, a series of violent storms causes extensive damage to the eastern coastof the US. Although it is not clear whether the storms are caused by climatechange, 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

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

65

Shell Internationale Petroleum, Greenhouse Effect Working Group, The Greenhouse
Effect (May 1988) pp. 1, 27, available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411090Document3.html#document/p9/a411239 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
66
Id. at pp. 1, 6.
67
Jerving et al., Special Report: What Exxon Knew About Global Warming’s Impact on
the Arctic, L.A. Times (Oct. 10, 2015), available at https://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-advexxon-arctic-20151011-story.html (as of Sept. 14, 2023).
49
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

insurance industry, or the government. After all, two successive IPCC reports
since 1995 have reinforced the human connection to climate change . . .
Following the storms, a coalition of environmental NGOs brings a classaction suit against the US government and fossil-fuel companies on the groundsof neglecting what scientists (including their own) have been saying for years:
that something must be done. A social reaction to the use of fossil fuels grows,
and individuals become ‘vigilante environmentalists’ in the same way, ageneration earlier, they had become fiercely anti-tobacco. Direct-action
campaigns against companies escalate. Young consumers, especially, demandaction. 68

2
3
4
5
6
7

70.

Fossil fuel companies did not just consider climate change impacts in scenarios; they8

also incorporated those impacts in their on-the-ground planning. In the mid-1990s, Exxon, Shell,

9

and Imperial Oil (Exxon) jointly undertook the Sable Offshore Energy Project in Nova Scotia.

10

The project’s own Environmental Impact Statement declared, “The impact of a global warming

11

sea-level rise may be particularly significant in Nova Scotia. The long-term tide gauge records at

12

a number of locations along the N.S. coast have shown sea level has been rising over the past

13

century. . . . For the design of coastal and offshore structures, an estimated rise in water level, due

14

to global warming, of 0.5 m [1.64 feet] may be assumed for the proposed project life (2515years).” 69

16

71.

Climate change research conducted by Defendants and their industry associations

17

frequently acknowledged uncertainties in their climate modeling. Those uncertainties, however,18

were largely with respect to the magnitude and timing of climate impacts resulting from fossil

19

fuel consumption, not with respect to whether significant changes would eventually occur.

20

Defendants’ researchers and the researchers at their industry associations harbored little doubt

21

that climate change was occurring and that fossil fuel products were, and are, the primary cause.

22

72.

Despite the overwhelming information about the threats to people and the planet23

posed by continued unabated use of their fossil fuel products, the Fossil Fuel Defendants failed to24

act as they reasonably should have to avoid or mitigate those dire adverse impacts. The Fossil

25

Fuel Defendants instead undertook affirmative efforts to promote their fossil fuel products as safe

26
27
28

68

Royal Dutch Shell Group, Group Scenarios 1998–2020 (1998) pp. 115, 118, available at
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4430277-27-1-Compiled.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
69
ExxonMobil, Sable Project Development Plan, vol. 3, Environmental Impact Statement(Feb. 1996), pp. 4-77.
50
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1and cast doubt in the public’s mind about the burgeoning scientific consensus on climate change,2

as described below. This was an abdication of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ responsibility to3consumers and the public, including the State, to act on their knowledge of the reasonably

4

foreseeable hazards of unabated production and consumption of their fossil fuel products.

5

C.

Defendants Did Not Disclose Known Harms Associated with the Intended
Use of Fossil Fuel Products, and Instead Affirmatively Concealed Those
Harms by Engaging in a Campaign of Deception to Increase the Use of
Those Products73.

By 1988, Defendants had amassed a compelling body of knowledge about the role of

6
7
8
9

anthropogenic greenhouse gases, specifically those emitted from the use of fossil fuel products, in

10

causing climate change and its cascading impacts, including disruptions to the hydrologic cycle,

11

extreme precipitation, extreme drought, increasing temperatures, and associated consequences for12

human communities and the environment.

13

74.

On notice that their products were causing global climate change and dire effects on

14

the planet, the Fossil Fuel Defendants and API faced the decision whether to take steps to limit

15

the damage that the use of fossil fuel products was causing and would continue to cause Earth’s

16

inhabitants, including the people of California. Before or thereafter, Defendants could and17

reasonably should have taken any number of steps to mitigate the damage caused by the use of18

fossil fuel products. Their own comments reveal an awareness of what steps should have been

19

taken. Defendants should have warned civil society and California consumers of the dangers

20

known to Defendants of the unabated use of fossil fuel products, and they could and should have21

taken reasonable steps to limit the greenhouse gases emitted by use of fossil fuel products. This

22

would have allowed policymakers to act sooner and more quickly to limit fossil fuel consumption

23

and accelerate the transition to non-carbon sources. This work is now underway, but was24

wrongfully delayed by Defendants’ deception. Simply put, Defendants should have issued

25

warnings commensurate with their own understanding of the risks posed by the expected and26

intended uses of fossil fuel products.

27
28

75.

Not only did Defendants fail to issue any warnings, but several key events during theperiod between 1988 and 1992 prompted them to change their tactics from general research and51
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1internal discussion on climate change to a public campaign aimed at deceiving consumers and the2public, including the inhabitants of California. These key events included the following:3a.

In 1988, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientists

4

confirmed that human activities were actually contributing to global warming. On June 23, 1988,

5

NASA scientist James Hansen’s presentation of this information to Congress engendered6significant news coverage and publicity for the announcement, including coverage on the front

7

page of The New York Times. 70

8b.

On July 28, 1988, Senator Robert Stafford and four bipartisan co-sponsors

9

introduced S. 2666, “The Global Environmental Protection Act,” to regulate CO2 and other10

greenhouse gases. Three more bipartisan bills to significantly reduce CO2 pollution were11

introduced over the following ten weeks, and in August, U.S. Presidential candidate George H.W.

12

Bush pledged that his presidency would combat the greenhouse effect with “the White House13

effect.” 71 Political will in the United States to reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions and mitigate

14

the harms associated with Defendants’ fossil fuel products was gaining momentum.
c.

15

In December 1988, the United Nations formed the IPCC, a scientific panel

16

dedicated to providing the world’s governments with an objective, scientific analysis of climate

17

change and its environmental, political, and economic impacts.
d.

18

In 1990, the IPCC published its First Assessment Report on anthropogenic

19

climate change, 72 which concluded that (1) “there is a natural greenhouse effect which already20

keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be,” and (2) that

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing theatmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane,chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance thegreenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s

70

See Frumhoff et al., The Climate Responsibilities of Industrial Carbon Producers(2015) 132 Climatic Change 157, 161, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1472-5(as of Sept. 13, 2023).
71
N.Y. Times Editorial Board, The White House and the Greenhouse, N.Y. Times (May9, 1989), available at http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/09/opinion/the-white-house-and-thegreenhouse.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
72
See IPCC, Reports, available at https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
52
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

12
3

surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global
warming and further enhance it. 73
The IPCC reconfirmed those conclusions in a 1992 supplement to the First Assessment Report. 74e.

4

The United Nations held the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, a5major, newsworthy gathering of over 170 world governments, of which more than 100 sent their6heads of state. The Summit resulted in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

7

Change, an international environmental treaty providing protocols for future negotiations aimed

8

at “stabiliz[ing] greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent

9

dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” 75

10

76.

Defendants’ campaign of deception focused on concealing, discrediting, and/or

11

misrepresenting information that tended to support restricting the use of fossil fuels and

12transitioning society to a lower-carbon future, thereby decreasing demand for Fossil Fuel

13

Defendants’ products. The campaign enabled the Fossil Fuel Defendants to continue their

14business practice of exploiting fossil fuel reserves and concurrently externalizing the social and

15

environmental costs of their fossil fuel products. Those activities ran counter to Defendants’ own

16prior recognition that the science of anthropogenic climate change was clear, and that action was

17needed to avoid or mitigate dire consequences to the planet and to communities like California’s.

18

77.

The Fossil Fuel Defendants—both on their own and jointly through industry and front

19

groups such as API and the GCC—funded, conceived, planned, and carried out a sustained and20

widespread campaign of denial and disinformation about the existence of climate change and21

their products’ contribution to it. The campaign included a long-term pattern of direct22

misrepresentations and material omissions, as well as a plan to influence consumers indirectly by

23

affecting public opinion through the dissemination of misleading information to the press,

24

government, and academia. Although the Fossil Fuel Defendants were competitors in the

25
26
27
28

73

IPCC, Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment (Houghton et al. edits. 1990)
p. xi, available at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
74
IPCC, Climate Change: The 1990 and 1992 IPCC Assessments (1992) p. 52, available
at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/climate-change-the-ipcc-1990-and-1992-assessments (as of Sept.
13, 2023).
75
United Nations, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) art.
2, p. 4, available at https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
53
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

marketplace, they combined and collaborated with each other and with API on this public2

campaign to misdirect and stifle public knowledge in order to increase sales and protect profits.

3

The effort included promoting hazardous fossil fuel products through advertising campaigns that4

failed to warn of the existential risks associated with the use of those products and that were5

designed to influence consumers to continue using the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel6

products, irrespective of those products’ damage to communities and the environment.

778.

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

8internal memo that Exxon “is providing leadership through API in developing the petroleum9

industry position” on “the greenhouse effect.” 76 He then went on to describe the “Exxon

10

Position,” which included two important messaging tenets, among others: (1) “[e]mphasize the11

uncertainty in scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced Greenhouse effect”; and (2)12“[r]esist the overstatement and sensationalization of potential Greenhouse effect which could lead13

to noneconomic development of nonfossil fuel resources.” 77

14

79.

Reflecting on his time as an Exxon consultant in the 1980s, Professor Martin Hoffert,

15

a former New York University physicist who researched climate change, expressed regret over16

Exxon’s “climate science denial program campaign” in his sworn testimony before Congress:

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[O]ur research [at Exxon] was consistent with findings of the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on human impacts of fossil fuelburning, which is that they are increasingly having a perceptible influence on
Earth’s climate. . . . If anything, adverse climate change from elevated CO2 is
proceeding faster than the average of the prior IPCC mild projections and fully
consistent with what we knew back in the early 1980’s at Exxon. . . . I was greatly
distressed by the climate science denial program campaign that Exxon’s front officelaunched around the time I stopped working as a consultant—but not collaborator—
for Exxon. The advertisements that Exxon ran in major newspapers raising doubt
about climate change were contradicted by the scientific work we had done andcontinue to do. Exxon was publicly promoting views that its own scientists knew
were wrong, and we knew that because we were the major group working on this. 78
76

Joseph M. Carlson, memorandum re The Greenhouse Effect (Aug. 3, 1988) p. 7,
available at https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3024180/1998-Exxon-Memo-on-theGreenhouse-Effect.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
77
Id. at pp. 7-8.
78
Martin Hoffert, former Exxon consultant and Professor Emeritus of Physics at New
York University, Examining the Oil Industry’s Efforts to Suppress the Truth About Climate
Change, Hearing Before the House Comm. on Oversight and Reform, Subcomm. on Civil Rights
and Civil Liberties, 116th Cong., 1st Sess., at pp. 7-8 (Oct. 23, 2019), available athttps://www.congress.gov/event/116th-congress/house-event/110126 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
54
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

80.

A 1994 Shell report entitled “The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect: A Review of the2

Scientific Aspects” by Royal Dutch Shell’s Peter Langcake stands in stark contrast to the3company’s 1988 report on the same topic. Whereas before the authors had recommended

4

consideration of policy solutions early on, Langcake warned of the potentially dramatic

5“economic effects of ill-advised policy measures.” While the report recognized the IPCC

6

conclusions as the mainstream view, Langcake still emphasized scientific uncertainty, noting, for7

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

8

has to be seen in relation to natural climate variability, which is still largely unpredictable.” The

9

Shell position is stated clearly in the report: “Scientific uncertainty and the evolution of energy

10systems indicate that policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions beyond ‘no regrets’ measures11

could be premature, divert resources from more pressing needs and further distort markets.” 79

12

81.

In 1996, Exxon released a publication called “Global Warming: Who’s Right? Facts

13

about a debate that’s turned up more questions than answers.” In the publication’s preface, Exxon

14

CEO Lee Raymond inaccurately stated that “taking drastic action immediately is unnecessary

15

since many scientists agree there’s ample time to better understand the climate system.” The16

publication described the greenhouse effect as “unquestionably real and definitely a good thing,”

17

while ignoring the severe consequences that would result from the influence of the increased CO2

18

concentration on the Earth’s climate. Instead, it characterized the greenhouse effect as simply

19“what makes the earth’s atmosphere livable.” Directly contradicting Exxon’s own internal

20knowledge and peer-reviewed science, the publication ascribed the rise in temperature since the21late nineteenth century to “natural fluctuations that occur over long periods of time” rather than to22

the anthropogenic emissions that Exxon itself and other scientists had confirmed were23

responsible. The publication also falsely challenged the computer models that projected the future

24

impacts of unabated fossil fuel product consumption, including those developed by Exxon’s own

25

employees, as having been “proved to be inaccurate.” The publication contradicted the numerous

26
27
28

79

Langcake, Shell Internationale Petroleum, The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect: A Reviewof the Scientific Aspects (Dec. 1994) pp. 1, 9, 14, available athttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411099-Document11.html#document/p15/a411511(as of Sept. 13, 2023).
55
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1reports prepared by and circulated among Exxon’s staff, and by API, stating that “the indications

2

are that a warmer world would be far more benign than many imagine . . . moderate warming

3

would reduce mortality rates in the U.S., so a slightly warmer climate would be more healthful.”

4

Raymond concluded his preface by attacking advocates for limiting the use of his company’s

5fossil fuel products as “drawing on bad science, faulty logic or unrealistic assumptions”—despite

6

the important role that Exxon’s own scientists had played in compiling those same scientific

7

underpinnings. 80

882.

API published an extensive report in the same year warning against concern over CO2

9buildup and any need to curb consumption or regulate the fossil fuel industry. The introduction

10

stated that “there is no persuasive basis for forcing Americans to dramatically change their11

lifestyles to use less oil.” The authors discouraged the further development of certain alternative

12

energy sources, writing that “government agencies have advocated the increased use of ethanol

13

and the electric car, without the facts to support the assertion that either is superior to existing

14

fuels and technologies” and that “[p]olicies that mandate replacing oil with specific alternative15

fuel technologies freeze progress at the current level of technology, and reduce the chance that16

innovation will develop better solutions.” The paper also denied the human connection to climate

17

change, by falsely stating that “no conclusive—or even strongly suggestive—scientific evidence

18

exists that human activities are significantly affecting sea levels, rainfall, surface temperatures or

19

the intensity and frequency of storms.” The report’s message was false but clear: “facts don’t

20

support the arguments for restraining oil use.” 81

21

83.

In a speech presented at the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing in 1997 at which

22

many of the Defendants were present, Exxon CEO Lee Raymond reiterated those views. This23

time, he presented a false dichotomy between stable energy markets and abatement of the

24
25
26
27
28

80

Exxon Corp., Global Warming: Who’s Right? (1996) pp. 3, 5-7, available athttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805542-Exxon-Global-Warming-Whos-Right.html(as of Sept. 13, 2023).
81
Gentille et al., American Petroleum Institute, Reinventing Energy: Making the Right
Choices (1996) pp. 2, 11, 63, 79, available athttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4224133-Reinventing-Energy (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
56
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

marketing, promotion, and sale of fossil fuel products Defendants knew to be hazardous. He

2stated:14[S]ome people . . . argue that we should drastically curtail our use of fossil fuels forenvironmental reasons . . . my belief [is] that such proposals are neither prudent norpractical. With no readily available economic alternatives on the horizon, fossil
fuels will continue to supply most of the world’s and this region’s energy for theforeseeable future.
....
Governments also need to provide a stable investment climate . . . . They should
avoid the temptation to intervene in energy markets in ways that give advantage to
one competitor over another—or one fuel over another.
....
We also have to keep in mind that most of the greenhouse effect comes from natural
sources . . . . Leaping to radically cut this tiny sliver of the greenhouse pie on thepremise that it will affect climate defies common sense and lacks foundation in ourcurrent understanding of the climate system.
....
[L]et’s agree there’s a lot we really don’t know about how climate will change inthe 21st century and beyond . . . . It is highly unlikely that the temperature in the
middle of the next century will be significantly affected whether policies areenacted now or 20 years from now. . . . It’s bad public policy to impose very costly
regulations and restrictions when their need has yet to be proven. 82

15

84.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Imperial Oil (Exxon) CEO Robert Peterson falsely denied the established connection

16

between the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products and anthropogenic climate change in an

17

essay in the Summer 1998 issue of Imperial Oil’s magazine, “Imperial Oil Review”:

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[T]his issue [referring to climate change] has absolutely nothing to do with
pollution and air quality. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but an essential
ingredient of life on this planet. . . . [T]he question of whether or not the trappingof “greenhouse” gases will result in the planet’s getting warmer . . . has noconnection whatsoever with our day-to-day weather.
....
There is absolutely no agreement among climatologists on whether or not the planetis getting warmer or, if it is, on whether the warming is the result of man-madefactors or natural variations in the climate. . . . I feel very safe in saying that theview that burning fossil fuels will result in global climate change remains an
unproved hypothesis. 83
82

Lee R. Raymond, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Exxon Corp., in an address atthe World Petroleum Congress at pp. 4, 8, 9, 11, (Oct. 13, 1997), available athttps://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2840902/1997-Lee-Raymond-Speech-at-ChinaWorld-Petroleum.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
83
Peterson, A Cleaner Canada, Imperial Oil Review (1998) p. 29, available athttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6555577-1998-Robert-PetersonA-Cleaner-CanadaImperial.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
57
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

85.

Mobil (Exxon) paid for a series of “advertorials,” advertisements located in the2

editorial section of The New York Times and meant to look like editorials rather than paid ads.

3

Many of those advertorials communicated doubt about the reality and severity of human-caused

4

climate change, even as industry scientists contemporaneously reiterated that climate change was5real, serious, and caused by human activity. The ads addressed various aspects of the public

6

discussion of climate change and sought to undermine the justifications for tackling GHG

7emissions as unsettled science. The 1997 advertorial on the following page argued that economic

8

analysis of emissions restrictions was faulty and inconclusive and therefore provided a9justification for delaying action on climate change.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
58
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Figure 6: 1997 Mobil Advertorial 84
59
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

86.

Many other Exxon and Mobil advertorials falsely or misleadingly characterized the2state of climate science research to the readership of The New York Times’s op-ed page. A sample

3of misleading or outright untruthful statements in paid advertisements that resembled op-eds

4includes the following:5• “We don’t know enough about the factors that affect global warming and the degree6

to which—if any—that man-made emissions (namely, carbon dioxide) contribute to7

increases in Earth’s temperature.” 85

8• “[G]reenhouse-gas emissions, which have a warming effect, are offset by anothercombustion product—particulates—which leads to cooling.” 86

910• “Even after two decades of progress, climatologists are still uncertain how—or even11

if—the buildup of man-made greenhouse gases is linked to global warming.” 87

12• “[I]t is impossible for scientists to attribute the recent small surface temperature
increase to human causes.” 88

13
14

87.

A quantitative analysis of Exxon’s climate communications between 1989 and 2004

15

found that, while 83% of the company’s peer-reviewed papers and 80% of its internal documents

16

acknowledged the reality and human origins of climate change, 81% of its advertorials

17

communicated doubt about those conclusions. 89 Based on this “statistically significant”

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

84

Mobil, When Facts Don’t Square with the Theory, Throw Out the Facts, in N.Y. Times(Aug. 14, 1997) p. A31, available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705550-mobnyt-1997-aug-14-whenfactsdontsquare.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
85
Mobil, Climate Change: A Prudent Approach, in N.Y. Times (Nov. 13, 1997) p. A27,
available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705548-mob-nyt-1997-11-13climateprudentapproach.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
86
Mobil, Less Heat, More Light on Climate Change, in N.Y. Times (July 18, 1996) p.
A23, available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705544-mob-nyt-1996-jul-18lessheatmorelight.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
87
Mobil, Climate Change: Where We Come Out, in N.Y. Times (Nov. 20, 1997) p. A31,
available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705549-mob-nyt-1997-11-20ccwherewecomeout.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023) (emphasis in original).
88
ExxonMobil, Unsettled Science, in N.Y. Times (Mar. 23, 2000), available athttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705605-xom-nyt-2000-3-23-unsettledscience (as of
Sept. 13, 2023).
89
Supran & Oreskes, Assessing ExxonMobil’s Climate Change Communications (1977–2014) (2017) 12(8) Environmental Research Letters, available athttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f/pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
60
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

discrepancy between internal and external communications, the authors concluded that

2

“ExxonMobil misled the public.” 90

388.

The Fossil Fuel Defendants—individually and through API, other trade associations,4and various front groups—mounted a public campaign of deception in order to continue

5wrongfully promoting and marketing their fossil fuel products, despite their own knowledge and6

the growing national and international scientific consensus about the hazards of doing so.

789.

One of the key organizations formed by the Fossil Fuel Defendants to coordinate the8fossil fuel industry’s response to the world’s growing awareness of climate change was the9International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA). In 1988, the10

IPIECA formed a “Working Group on Global Climate Change” chaired by Duane LeVine,

11

Exxon’s manager for science and strategy development. The Working Group also included Brian

12

Flannery from Exxon, Leonard Bernstein from Mobil, Terry Yosie from API, and representatives

13from BP, Shell, and Texaco (Chevron). In 1990, the Working Group sent a strategy memo created

14

by LeVine to IPIECA member companies. This memo explained that, to forestall a global shift

15

away from burning fossil fuels for energy, the industry should emphasize uncertainties in climate

16

science, call for further research, and promote industry friendly policies that would leave the17

fossil fuel business intact. 91

18

90.

The GCC, on behalf of the Fossil Fuel Defendants and other fossil fuel companies,

19

also funded deceptive advertising campaigns and distributed misleading material to generate

20

public uncertainty around the climate debate, seeking to prevent U.S. adoption of a 1997

21

international agreement to limit and reduce GHG emissions known as the Kyoto Protocol and22

thereby inflate the market for fossil fuels, despite the leading role that the U.S. had played in23

negotiating the Protocol. 92 The GCC’s position on climate change contradicted decades of its

24
25
26
27
28

90

Ibid.; Supran & Oreskes, Addendum to ‘Assessing ExxonMobil’s Climate Change
Communications (1977–2014) (2020) 15(11) Environmental Research Letters, available athttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f/pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
91
Bonneuil et al., Early Warnings and Emerging Accountability: Total’s Responses to
Global Warming, 1971-2021 (2021) 71 Global Environmental Change, available athttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378021001655 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
92
Brulle, Advocating Inaction: A Historical Analysis of the Global Climate Coalition(2023) 32 Environmental Politics 2, 13-14, available at https://cssn.org/wp61
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1members’ internal scientific reports by asserting that natural trends, not human combustion of2

fossil fuels, were responsible for rising global temperatures:

5

The GCC believes that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that most, if notall, of the observed warming is part of a natural warming trend which began
approximately 400 years ago. If there is an anthropogenic component to thisobserved warming, the GCC believes that it must be very small and must be
superimposed on a much larger natural warming trend. 93

6

91.

3
4

The GCC’s promotion of overt climate change skepticism also contravened its

7internal assessment that such theories lacked scientific support. Despite an internal primer

8

acknowledging that various “contrarian theories” (i.e., climate change skepticism) “do not offer

9convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced

10

climate change,” 94 the GCC excluded this section from the publicly released version of the

11backgrounder, 95 and instead funded and promoted some of those same contrarian theories.

12

Between 1989 and 1998, the GCC spent $13 million on advertisements as part of a campaign to13

obfuscate the facts and the science relating to climate change and undermine the public’s trust in

14

climate scientists. 96 Ultimately, the GCC’s efforts “created an influential discourse of climate

15

skepticism in the U.S. that continues to be an influential political current.” 97

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

content/uploads/2022/04/GCC-Paper.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023) (Brulle notes in particular theeffectiveness of the GCC in opposing the Kyoto protocol: “In one final compliment, the GCC’s
effectiveness was acknowledged in a meeting with White House staff on 21 June 2001. The
talking points for that meeting noted that ‘POTUS rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input fromyou.’”).
93
Global Climate Coalition, Global Climate Coalition: An Overview (Nov. 1996) p. 2,
available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5453339-1996-GCC-Overview-andReports (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
94
Gregory J. Dana, Assoc. of Int’l Auto. Mfrs., memorandum to AIAM TechnicalCommittee, Global Climate Coalition (GCC) re Primer on Climate Change Science - Final Draft(Jan. 18, 1996) p. 16, available at http://www.webcitation.org/6FyqHawb9 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
95
See Gregory J. Dana, Assoc. of Int’l Auto. Mfrs., memorandum to AIAM TechnicalCommittee, Global Climate Coalition (GCC) re Science and Technology Assessment Committee(STAC) Meeting – February 15, 1996 – Summary (Feb. 27, 1996) p. 7, available athttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5631461-AIAM-050835.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023)(“Most suggestions [at the STAC meeting] had been to drop the ‘contrarian’ part. This idea was
accepted and that portion of the paper will be dropped.”).
96
Franz, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Science, Skeptics and NonState Actors in the Greenhouse (Sept. 1998) ENRP Discussion Paper E-98-18, p. 13, available athttps://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/Science%20Skeptics%20and%20Non-State%20Actors%20in%20the%20Greenhouse%20-%20E-98-18.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
97
Boon, A Climate of Change? The Oil Industry and Decarbonization in Historical
Perspective (2019) 93 Bus. History Rev. 101, 110.
62
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

92.

For example, in a 1994 report, the GCC stated that “observations have not yet

2confirmed evidence of global warming that can be attributed to human activities,” that “[t]he3claim that serious impacts from climate change have occurred or will occur in the future simply

4

has not been proven,” so “there is no basis for the design of effective policy actions that would

5

eliminate the potential for climate change.” 98 In 1995, the GCC published a booklet called

6“Climate Change: Your Passport to the Facts,” which stated, “While many warnings have reached7

the popular press about the consequences of a potential man-made warming of the Earth’s

8

atmosphere during the next 100 years, there remains no scientific evidence that such a dangerous

9

warming will actually occur.” 99

10

93.

In 1997, William O’Keefe, chairman of the GCC and executive vice president of API,11

made the following false statement in a Washington Post op-ed: “Climate scientists don’t say that12burning oil, gas, and coal is steadily warming the earth.” 100 This statement contradicted the13established scientific consensus as well as Defendants’ own knowledge. Yet Defendants did

14

nothing to correct the public record, and instead continued to fund the GCC’s anti-scientific15

climate skepticism.

16

94.

In addition to publicly spreading false and misleading information about the climate

17

science consensus, the GCC also sought to undermine credible climate science from within the18

IPCC. After becoming a reviewer of IPCC’s Second Assessment Report in 1996, the GCC used19

its position to accuse the lead author of a key chapter in the Report of modifying the chapter’s

20

conclusions. The GCC claimed that the author, climatologist Ben Santer, had engaged in

21“scientific cleansing” that “understate[d] uncertainties about climate change causes and22

effects . . . to increase the apparent scientific support for attribution of changes to climate to

23
24
25
26
27
28

98

Global Climate Coalition, Issues and Options: Potential Global Climate Change (1994),
preface & p. 43, available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5628164-PotentialGlobal-Climate-Change-Issues-and-Options (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
99
Global Climate Coalition, Climate Change: Your Passport to the Facts (1995), available
at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5628109-Climate-Change-Your-Passport-to-theFacts (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
100
O’Keefe, A Climate Policy, The Washington Post (July 5, 1997), available athttps://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1997/07/05/a-climate-policy/6a11899a-c0204d59-a185-b0e7eebf19cc/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
63
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1human activities.” 101 The GCC also arranged to spread the accusation among legislators,

2reporters, and scientists, and similar accusations were published in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. 102

3This effort “was widely perceived to be an attempt on the part of the GCC to undermine the4credibility of the IPCC.” 103

595.

In the late 1990s, Defendants shifted away from openly denying anthropogenic

6

warming and toward peddling a subtler form of climate change skepticism. Defendants became

7

alarmed by the enormous legal judgments the tobacco industry then faced as a result of decades

8

spent publicly denying the health risks of smoking cigarettes; a Shell employee explained that the9company “didn’t want to fall into the same trap as the tobacco companies who have become10

trapped in all their lies.” 104 Defendants began to shift their communications strategy, claiming

11

they had accepted climate science all along. 105 Several large fossil fuel companies, including BP

12and Shell, left the GCC (although all the Fossil Fuel Defendants remained members of API). 106

13

At this point in time, Defendants publicly claimed to accept the reality of anthropogenic climate

14change, while insisting that the costs of climate action were unacceptably high in light of the yet-

15

unresolved uncertainties in climate science—especially around the severity and timeframe of16

future climate impacts. Reflecting this new strategy, API Executive Vice President (and GCC

17chairman) William O’Keefe announced in November 1998 that “[w]e are committed to being part18of the solution to the climate risk and to active participation in the debate to forge a clear,19

defensible policy.” “[T]he debate is not about action or inaction,” O’Keefe wrote, “but what set of

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

101

Franz, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Science, Skeptics and
Non-State Actors in the Greenhouse (Sept. 1998) ENRP Discussion Paper E-98-18, p. 14,
available athttps://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/Science%20Skeptics%20and%20Non-State%20Actors%20in%20the%20Greenhouse%20-%20E-98-18.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
102
Oreskes & Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured theTruth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (2011) p. 207. See also Singer, Climate
Change and Consensus, 271 Science no. 5249 (Feb. 2, 1996); Seitz, A Major Deception on'Global Warming', Wall Street Journal (June 12, 1996), available athttps://www.wsj.com/articles/SB834512411338954000 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
103
Franz, Science, Skeptics, and Non-State Actors in the Greenhouse, supra, p. 15.
104
Rich, Losing Earth: A Recent History (2020) p. 186.
105
Bonneuil et al., Early Warnings and Emerging Accountability: Total’s Responses to
Global Warming, 1971-2021 (2021) 71 Global Envtl. Change 6, available athttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378021001655 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
106
Ibid.
64
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

actions is consistent with our state of knowledge and economic well-being.” 107 Rather than2

publicly deny the need to address climate change, Defendants’ new communications strategy

3sought to forestall policy actions that might decrease consumption of fossil fuel products.

496.

Despite their public about-face, Defendants surreptitiously continued to organize and5fund programs designed to deceive the public about the weight and veracity of the climate science

6consensus. In 1998, API convened a Global Climate Science Communications Team (GCSCT)

7

whose members included Exxon’s senior environmental lobbyist, an API public relations

8

representative, and a federal relations representative from Chevron. There were no climate

9

scientists on the GCSCT. Steve Milloy and his organization, The Advancement of Sound Science

10

Coalition (TASSC), were founding members of the GCSCT. TASSC was an organization created11by the tobacco industry to give the impression of a “grassroots” movement, which aimed to sow

12

uncertainty by discrediting the scientific link between exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke

13

and increased rates of cancer and heart disease. Philip Morris had launched TASSC on the advice

14of its public relations firm, which advised Philip Morris that the tobacco company itself would

15

not be a credible voice on the issue of smoking and public health. TASSC also became a front

16

group for the fossil fuel industry, using the same tactics it had honed while operating on behalf of17

tobacco companies to spread doubt about climate science.

18

97.

The GCSCT continued Defendants’ efforts to deceive the public about the dangers of19

fossil fuel use by launching a campaign in 1998 to convince the public that the scientific basis for20

climate change was in doubt. The multi-million-dollar, multi-year “Global Climate Science

21

Communications Action Plan” plan, sought, among other things, to do the following: (a)22“[d]evelop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about

23

uncertainties in climate science”; (b) “to generate national, regional and local media coverage on

24

the scientific uncertainties”; (c) “[d]evelop a global climate science information kit for media

25

including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the ‘conventional wisdom’ on climate science”; (d)26“[p]roduce . . . a steady stream of op-ed columns”; and (e) “[d]evelop and implement a direct

27
28

107

1, 1998).

API, U.S. Oil Industry Recognizes Climate Change Risk, 28 Oil & Gas Journal (Nov.
65
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1outreach program to inform and educate members of Congress, state officials, . . . and school2

teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science” to “begin to erect a barrier against3

further efforts to impose Kyoto [Protocol]-like measures in the future” 108—a blatant attempt to4

disrupt international efforts to negotiate any treaty curbing GHG emissions and to ensure a5continued and unimpeded market for their fossil fuel products.

6

98.

Exxon, Chevron, and API directed and contributed to the development of the plan,7

which plainly set forth the criteria by which the contributors would know when their efforts to8

manufacture doubt had been successful. “Victory,” they wrote, “will be achieved when . . .

9average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science” and “recognition of

10

uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” 109 In other words, the plan was part of11

Defendants’ goal to use disinformation to plant doubt about the reality of climate change in an

12effort to maintain consumer demand for their fossil fuel products and their large profits.

13

99.

Soon after, API distributed a memo to its members illuminating API’s and the Fossil

14

Fuel Defendants’ concern over the potential regulation of their fossil fuel products: “Climate is at15

the center of the industry’s business interests. Policies limiting carbon emissions reduce

16

petroleum product use. That is why it is API’s highest priority issue and defined as ‘strategic.’” 11017

The API memo stressed many of the strategies that Defendants collectively utilized to combat the18

perception of fossil fuel products as hazardous. These strategies included the following:a.

19

Influencing the tenor of the climate change “debate” as a means to establish that20

greenhouse gas reduction policies like the Kyoto Protocol were not necessary to responsibly

21

address climate change;

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

108

Joe Walker, email to Global Climate Science Team re Draft Global Climate Science
Communications Plan (Apr. 3, 1998), available athttps://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/784572/api-global-climate-science-communicationsplan.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
109
Ibid.
110
Allegations of Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science,
Hearing Before the Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform, 110th Cong. 324 (Mar. 19,
2007), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg37415/html/CHRG110hhrg37415.htm (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
66
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1b.

Maintaining strong working relationships between government regulators on

2

the one hand, and communications-oriented organizations and other groups carrying Defendants’3

message minimizing the hazards of the unabated use of fossil fuel products and opposing

4

regulation thereof; and

5

c.

6

Presenting Defendants’ positions on climate change in domestic andinternational forums, including by presenting an “alternative” to the IPCC.

7100. In furtherance of the strategies described in these memoranda, Defendants made8

misleading statements about climate change, the relationship between climate change and fossil

9

fuel products, and the urgency of the problem. Defendants made these statements in public fora

10

and in advertisements published in newspapers and other media with substantial circulation in

11

California, including national publications such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal,

12

and The Washington Post.

13

101. Another key strategy in Defendants’ efforts to discredit the scientific consensus on

14

climate change as well as the IPCC itself was to fund scientists who held fringe opinions. Those

15

scientists obtained part or all of their research budget from the Fossil Fuel Defendants, either

16

directly or through Fossil Fuel Defendant-funded organizations like API, 111 but frequently failed

17

to disclose their funding sources. 112 At least one such scientist, Dr. Wei-Hock Soon, took the

18highly unusual approach of contractually agreeing to allow donors to review his research before

19

publication, and his housing institution, the Smithsonian Institute, agreed not to disclose the20

funding arrangement without prior permission from his fossil fuel donors. 113 Defendants intended

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

111

E.g., Soon & Baliunas, Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000
Years, (Jan. 31, 2003) 23 Climate Rsch. 88, 105, available at https://www.intres.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
112
Allman, Climate Change Researcher Received Funds From Fossil Fuel Industry (Feb.
26, 2015) Smithsonian Magazine, available athttps://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonianmag/smithsonian-climate-change-scientist180954380/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
113
Mulvey et al., Union of Concerned Scientists, The Climate Deception Dossiers:
Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Disinformation, Climate Deception
Dossiers #1: Dr. Wei-Hock Soon’s Smithsonian Contracts (July 2015) pp. 6-9, available athttps://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf(as of Sept. 13, 2023).
67
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1for the research of scientists they funded to be distributed to and relied on by consumers when2

buying Fossil Fuel Defendants’ products, including by consumers in California.

3102. Creating a false perception of disagreement in the scientific community (despite the4consensus previously acknowledged within the industry) has evidently disrupted vital channels of

5communication between scientists and the public. A 2007 Yale University-Gallup poll found that6

while 71% of Americans personally believed global warming was happening, only 48% believed

7that there was a consensus among the scientific community, and 40% believed, falsely, that there8

was substantial disagreement among scientists over whether global warming was occurring. 114

9Eight years later, a 2015 Yale-George Mason University poll found that “[o]nly about one in ten

10Americans understands that nearly all climate scientists (over 90%) are convinced that human-11caused global warming is happening, and just half . . . believe a majority do.” 115 Further, it found

12that 33% of Americans believe that climate change is mostly due to natural changes in the13environment, in stark contrast to the 97% of peer-reviewed climate science papers that14

acknowledge that global warming is happening and at least partly human-caused. 116 The lack of

15

progress, and indeed the regression, in the public’s understanding of climate science over this16

period—during which Defendants professed to accept the conclusions of mainstream climate

17

science—demonstrates the success of Defendants’ deception campaign in thwarting the18

dissemination of accurate scientific information to the public regarding the effects of the use of19

fossil fuels.

20

103. Defendants, individually, collectively, and through their trade association

21

memberships, worked directly, and often in a deliberately obscured manner, to conceal and22

misrepresent fossil fuel products’ known dangers from consumers, the public, and the State.

23
24
25
26
27
28

114

American Opinions on Global Warming: A Yale/Gallup/Clearvision Poll, Yale
Program on Climate Change Communication (July 31, 2007), available athttps://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/american-opinions-on-global-warming/ (as of
Sept. 13, 2023).
115
Leiserowitz et al., Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale University, andCenter for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University, Climate Change in theAmerican Mind (Oct. 2015), available at https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2015/11/Climate-Change-American-Mind-October-20151.pdf (as of Sept. 13,2023).
116
Ibid.
68
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1104. Defendants have funded dozens of think tanks, front groups, and “dark money”

2foundations—i.e., organizations that raise funds to influence elections while concealing their3

contributions to political candidates or causes, and the sources of their contributions—promoting

4

climate change denial. These organizations include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the5Heartland Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and the6

Heritage Foundation. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, from 1998 to 2017, Exxon

7

spent over $36 million funding numerous organizations misrepresenting the scientific8consensus 117 that fossil fuel products were causing climate change, sea level rise, and injuries to

9

California, among other communities. Several Defendants have been linked to other groups that

10

undermine the scientific basis linking fossil fuel products to climate change and sea level rise,

11

including the Frontiers of Freedom Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute.

12

105. Beginning in 2015, journalists began to uncover mounting evidence of Defendants’

13

campaign of deception. In September 2015, journalists at Inside Climate News reported that, as

14

far back as the 1970s, Exxon had had sophisticated knowledge of the causes and consequences of

15

climate change and of the role its products played in contributing to climate change. 118

16106. Between October and December 2015, several journalists at the Energy and17

Environment Reporting Project at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism and the18

Los Angeles Times also exposed the fact that, as far back as the 1970s, Exxon and other members

19of the fossil fuel industry had had superior knowledge of the causes and consequences of climate

20

change and the role their products played in causing it. 119

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

117

Union of Concerned Scientists, ExxonMobil Foundation & Corporate Giving to
Climate Change Denier & Obstructionist Organizations (1998-2017), available athttps://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/ExxonMobil-Worldwide-Giving-19982017.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
118
Banerjee et al., Exxon: The Road Not Taken, Inside Climate News (Sept. 16, 2015),
available at https://insideclimatenews.org/project/exxon-the-road-not-taken/ (as of Sept. 13,2023).
119
The Los Angeles Times published a series of three articles between October andDecember 2015. (See Jennings et al., How Exxon Went From Leader to Skeptic on Climate
Change Research, Los AngelesTimes (Oct. 23, 2015), available athttps://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-research (as of Sept. 13, 2023); Jerving et al., What Exxon
Knew About the Earth’s Melting Arctic, Los Angeles Times (Oct. 9, 2015), available athttps://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023); Lieberman & Rust et al., Big Oil
Braced for Global Warming While it Fought Regulations, Los Angeles Times (Dec. 31, 2015),
69
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1107. In November 2017, the Center for International Environmental Law issued a report2

revealing that Defendants, including API, had had superior knowledge of the causes and3

consequences of climate change and the role fossil fuel products played in causing it as early as4

the 1970s. 120

5

D.

6

Defendants Could Have Chosen to Facilitate, and Be Part of, a LowerCarbon Future, but Instead Chose Corporate Profits and Continued
Deception

7108. Defendants could have chosen a different path. They could have refrained from

8

undermining the global effort to mitigate the impacts of GHG emissions, or contributed to it by,

9for example, delineating practical technical strategies, policy goals, and regulatory structures that

10

would have allowed them to continue their business ventures while reducing GHG emissions and11

supporting a transition to a lower-carbon future. Instead, Defendants devoted significant efforts to12

deceiving consumers, lawmakers, and the public about the existential hazards of burning fossil

13

fuels—all with the purpose and effect of perpetuating and inflating usage of fossil fuels and14

delaying the advent of alternative energy sources not based on fossil fuels.

15

109. As a result of Defendants’ tortious, deceptive, and misleading conduct, consumers of

16

Defendants’ fossil fuel products, the public, and policymakers, in California as elsewhere, have17

been deliberately and unnecessarily deceived about the following: the role of fossil fuel products

18

in causing global warming, sea level rise, disruptions to the hydrologic cycle, more extreme

19

precipitation, heat waves, droughts, and other consequences of the climate crisis; the acceleration

20of global warming since the mid-twentieth century; and the fact that continued increases in fossil

21

fuel consumption create increasingly severe environmental threats and increasingly significant

22

economic costs for coastal and other communities in California. Consumers, the public, and23

policymakers in California and elsewhere have also been deceived about the depth and breadth of24

the state of the scientific evidence on anthropogenic climate change, and, in particular, about the

25
26
27
28

available at https://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations (as of Sept. 13, 2023)).
120
Muffett & Feit, Smoke and Fumes: The Legal and Evidentiary Basis for Holding Big
Oil Accountable for the Climate Crisis, Center for International Environmental Law (2017),
available at https://www.ciel.org/reports/smoke-and-fumes (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
70
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1strength of the scientific consensus regarding the role of fossil fuels in causing both climate

2change and a wide range of potentially destructive impacts.

3110. Defendants’ deception also significantly delayed the transition to alternative energy

4sources that could have prevented some of the worst impacts of climate change in California.

5

Exxon had long forecasted—and other Defendants were aware—that alternative energy sources

6

could have penetrated half of a competitive energy market in 50 years if allowed to develop

7

unimpeded. However, by sowing doubt about the future consequences of unrestricted fossil fuel8

consumption, Defendants’ deception campaign successfully forestalled development and9dissemination of alternative fuels, as well as legislation supporting a broad-based transition to10

alternative energy sources. This delay led to emission of huge amounts of avoidable greenhouse11

gases, thereby ensuring that the damage caused by climate change will be substantially more

12

severe than if Defendants had acted in a manner commensurate with their internal knowledge of

13

climate risks.

14

E.

15

Defendants’ Internal Actions Demonstrate Their Awareness of the Impactsof Climate Change and Their Intent to Continue to Profit from the
Unabated Use of Fossil Fuel Products

16111. In contrast to their public-facing efforts challenging the validity of the scientific17consensus about anthropogenic climate change, the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ acts and omissions

18

since the 1970s—including taking expensive actions to protect their own investments from the19

impacts of climate change—have evinced their clear understanding of the realities of climate

20

change and its likely consequences. These actions have included making multi-billion-dollar

21

infrastructure investments for their own operations, including, among others, the following:22

raising offshore oil platforms to protect against sea level rise; reinforcing offshore oil platforms to23

withstand increased wave strength and storm severity; and developing technology and24

infrastructure to extract, store, and transport fossil fuels in a warming Arctic environment. 121

25
26
27
28

121

Lieberman & Rust, Big Oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations, Los
Angeles Times (Dec. 31, 2015), available at https://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations (as of
Sept. 13, 2023).
71
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1112. For example, oil and gas reserves in the Arctic that were not previously reachable due

2

to sea ice are becoming increasingly reachable as sea ice thins and melts due to climate change. 122

3

In 1973, Exxon obtained a patent for a cargo vessel, such as a tank ship, capable of breaking

4through sea ice for use in Arctic operations 123 and for an oil tanker 124 designed for Arctic

5

operations.

6
7
8
9
10

113. In 1974, Texaco (Chevron) obtained a patent for a mobile Arctic drilling platform
designed to withstand significant interference from lateral ice masses. 125
114. Shell obtained a patent for an Arctic offshore platform adapted for conducting
operations in the Beaufort Sea in 1984. 126
115. In 1989, Norske Shell, Royal Dutch Shell’s Norwegian subsidiary, altered designs for11

a natural gas platform planned for construction in the North Sea to account for anticipated sea

12level rise. Those design changes added substantial costs to the project. 127
a.

13
14

In 1979, Norske Shell was approved by Norwegian oil and gas regulators tooperate a portion of the Troll oil and gas field.
b.

15

In 1986, the Norwegian parliament granted Norske Shell authority to complete16

the first development phase of the Troll field gas deposits, and Norske Shell began designing the17“Troll A” gas platform, with the intent to begin operation of the platform in approximately 1995.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

122

Henderson & Loe, The Prospects and Challenges for Arctic Oil Development, Oxford
Institute for Energy Studies (Nov. 2014) p. 1, available athttps://www.oxfordenergy.org/publications/the-prospects-and-challenges-for-arctic-oildevelopment/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
123
ExxonMobil Research Engineering Co., Patent US3727571A: Icebreaking cargo vessel(granted Apr. 17, 1973), available at https://www.google.com/patents/US3727571 (as of Sept. 13,2023).
124
ExxonMobil Research Engineering Co., Patent US3745960A: Tanker vessel (granted
July 17, 1973), available at https://www.google.com/patents/US3745960 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
125
Texaco Inc., Patent US3793840A: Mobile, arctic drilling and production platform(granted Feb. 26, 1974), available at https://www.google.com/patents/US3793840 (as of Sept. 13,2023).
126
Shell Oil Co., Patent US4427320A: Arctic offshore platform (granted Jan. 24, 1984),
available at https://www.google.com/patents/US4427320 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
127
Greenhouse Effect: Shell Anticipates a Sea Change, N.Y. Times (Dec. 20, 1989),
available at https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/greenhouse-effect-shell-anticipates-asea-change.html; Lieberman & Rust, Big Oil Braced for Global Warming While it Fought
Regulations, L.A. Times (Dec. 31, 2015), available at https://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations(as of Sept. 13, 2023).
72
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

Based on the very large size of the gas deposits in the Troll field, the Troll A platform was

2

projected to operate for approximately 70 years.

3
4

c.

The platform was originally designed to stand approximately 100 feet above sea

level—the height necessary to stay above the waves in a once-in-a-century-strength storm.

5d.

In 1989, Shell engineers revised their plans to increase the above-water height6of the platform by three to six feet in order to account for higher anticipated average sea levels

7and increased storm intensities due to global warming over the platform’s 70-year operational

8

life. 128

9
10
11

e.

Shell projected that the additional three to six feet of above-water construction

would increase the cost of the Troll A platform by tens of millions of dollars.
F.

12

Defendants’ Actions Have Slowed the Development of Alternative Energy
Sources and Exacerbated the Costs of Adapting to and Mitigating theAdverse Impacts of the Climate Crisis

13

116. As GHG pollution accumulates in the atmosphere, some of which (namely CO2) does14

not dissipate for potentially thousands of years, climate changes and consequent adverse

15

environmental changes compound, and their frequencies and magnitudes increase. As those16

adverse environmental changes compound, and their frequencies and magnitudes increase, so too

17

do the physical, environmental, economic, and social injuries resulting therefrom.

18

117. Delayed societal development and adoption of alternative energy sources and related

19

efforts to curb anthropogenic GHG emissions have therefore increased environmental harms and20

increased the magnitude and cost to address harms, including to California, that have already21

occurred or are locked in as a result of historical emissions.

22

118. Therefore, Defendants’ campaign to obscure the science of climate change to protect

23

and expand the use of fossil fuels greatly increased and continues to increase the injuries suffered

24

by California and its residents. Had concerted action to reduce GHG emissions begun earlier, the25subsequent impacts of climate change could have been avoided or mitigated.

26
27
28

128

Ibid.
73
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1119. Defendants have been aware for decades that clean energy presents a feasible

2

alternative to fossil fuels. In 1980, Exxon forecasted that non-fossil fuel energy sources, if

3pursued, could penetrate half of a competitive energy market in approximately 50 years. 129 This

4internal estimate was based on extensive modeling within the academic community, including

5

research conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s David Rose, which concluded

6

that a transition to non-fossil energy could be achieved in around 50 years. Exxon circulated an

7internal memo approving of Rose’s conclusions, stating they were “based on reasonable

8

assumptions.” 130 But instead of pursuing a clean energy transition or warning the public about the9dangers of burning fossil fuels, Defendants chose to deceive consumers to preserve Fossil Fuel

10

Defendants’ profits and assets. As a result, much time has been lost in which consumers and11

policymakers could have done much to mitigate the climate crisis in California.

12120. The costs of inaction on anthropogenic climate change and its adverse environmental

13

effects were not lost on Defendants. In a 1997 speech by John Browne, Group Chief Executive

14

for BP America, at Stanford University, Browne described Defendants’ and the entire fossil fuel15

industry’s responsibility and opportunity to reduce the use of fossil fuel products, reduce global

16

CO2 emissions, and mitigate the harms associated with the use and consumption of such products:

17

23[W]e need to go beyond analysis and to take action. It is a moment for change andfor a rethinking of corporate responsibility.
....
[T]here is now an effective consensus among the world’s leading scientists andserious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is adiscernible human influence on the climate, and a link between the concentrationof carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature.
....
We [the fossil fuel industry] have a responsibility to act, and I hope that throughour actions we can contribute to the much wider process which is desirable andnecessary.

24

129

18
19
20
21
22

25
26
27
28

Shaw & McCall, Exxon Research and Engineering Company’s Technological
Forecast: CO2 Greenhouse Effect (Dec. 18, 1980) p. 5, available athttps://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1980-exxon-memo-on-the-co2-greenhouse-effect-andcurrent-programs-studying-the-issue/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
130
Exxon Research and Engineering Company, Coordination and Planning Division, CO2
Greenhouse Effect: A Technical Review (Apr. 1, 1982) pp. 17-18, available athttps://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-management-about-co2greenhouse-effect/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
74
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

BP accepts that responsibility and we’re therefore taking some specific steps.
To control our own emissions.
To fund continuing scientific research.
To take initiatives for joint implementation.
To develop alternative fuels for the long term.
And to contribute to the public policy debate in search of the wider global answers
to the problem. 131
121. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of the foreseeable, measurable, and significant harms
associated with the unrestrained consumption and use of fossil fuel products, in California aselsewhere, and despite Defendants’ knowledge of technologies and practices that could havehelped to reduce the foreseeable dangers associated with their fossil fuel products, Defendants
continued to promote heavy fossil fuel use, and mounted a campaign to obscure the connection
between fossil fuel products and the climate crisis, thus dramatically adding to the costs ofabatement. (See supra, Section IV.C.) This campaign was intended to, and did, reach andinfluence California consumers, along with consumers elsewhere.
122. At all relevant times, Defendants were deeply familiar with opportunities to reduce
the use of fossil fuel products and associated GHG emissions, mitigate the harms associated withthe use and consumption of these products, and promote development of alternative, clean energy
sources. Examples of that recognition date back to the 1960s, and include, but are not limited to,the following:a.

In 1980, Imperial Oil (Exxon) wrote in its “Review of Environmental

Protection Activities for 1978–79”: “There is no doubt that increases in fossil fuel usage anddecreases in forest cover are aggravating the potential problem of increased CO2 in theatmosphere. Technology exists to remove CO2 from stack gases but removal of only 50% of theCO2 would double the cost of power generation.” 132131John Browne, Group Executive for BP America, BP Climate Change Speech to
Stanford (May 19, 1997), available at http://www.climatefiles.com/bp/bp-climate-change-speechto-stanford (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
132
Imperial Oil Ltd., Review of Environmental Protection Activities for 1978–1979 (Aug.
6, 1980) p. 2, available at https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1980-imperial-oil-review-ofenvironmental-protection-activities-for-1978-1979/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
75
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1b.

A 1987 company briefing produced by Shell on “Synthetic Fuels and2

Renewable Energy” emphasized the importance of immediate research and development of

3

alternative fuel sources, noting that “the task of replacing oil resources is likely to become4increasingly difficult and expensive and there will be a growing need to develop clean,5

convenient alternatives. . . . New energy sources take decades to make a major global

6

contribution. Sustained commitment is therefore needed during the remainder of this century to7ensure that new technologies and those currently at a relatively early stage of development are

8

available to meet energy needs in the next century.” 1339c.

A 1989 article in a publication from Exxon Corporate Research for company

10

use only stated: “CO2 emissions contribute about half the forcing leading to a potential

11

enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect. Since energy generation from fossil fuels dominates

12

modern CO2 emissions, strategies to limit CO2 growth focus near term on energy efficiency and13long term on developing alternative energy sources. Practiced at a level to significantly reduce the14

growth of greenhouse gases, these actions would have substantial impact on society and our15

industry—near-term from reduced demand for current products, long term from transition to16

entirely new energy systems.” 13417123. Despite these repeated recognitions of opportunities to reduce emissions and mitigate

18

corresponding harms from climate change, Defendants continued to sow doubt and19

disinformation in the minds of the public regarding the causes and effects of climate change, and20

methods of reducing emissions. Examples of those efforts include, but are not limited to, the21

following:
a.

22
23

In 1996, more than 30 years after API’s president told petroleum industry

leaders that carbon emissions from fossil fuels could “cause marked changes in climate” by the

24
25
26
27
28

133

Shell Briefing Service, Synthetic Fuels and Renewable Energy, Shell Service Briefing,
No. 2 (1987), available at https://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1987-shell-synthetic-fuelsrenewable-energy-briefing/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
134
Flannery, Greenhouse Science, Connections: Corporate Research, Exxon Research andEngineering Company (Fall 1989), available at https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1989exxon-mobil-article-technologys-place-marketing-mix/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
76
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1year 2000 if not abated, 135 API published the book Reinventing Energy: Making the Right

2

Choices to refute this very conclusion. Contradicting the scientific consensus of which its

3

members had been aware for decades, the book claims: “Currently, no conclusive—or even4strongly suggestive—scientific evidence exists that human activities are significantly affecting

5

sea levels, rainfall, surface temperatures, or the intensity and frequency of storms.” 136 The book6

also suggested that even if some warming does occur, such warming “would present few if any

7

problems” because, for example, farmers could be “smart enough to change their crop plans” and8

low-lying areas would “likely adapt” to sea level rise. 137

9b.

In the publication, API also contended that “[t]he state of the environment does10

not justify the call for the radical lifestyle changes Americans would have to make to substantially11

reduce the use of oil and other fossil fuels” and that the “benefits of alternatives aren’t worth the12cost of forcing their use.” “Some jobs definitely will be created in making, distributing and selling13

alternatives. But they will come at the expense of lost jobs in the traditional automobile and14

petroleum industries,” the authors continued. “[A]lternatives will likely be more expensive than15

conventional fuel/vehicle technology. Consumers, obviously, will bear these increased expenses,

16

which means they will have less to spend on other products. This in turn will . . . cost jobs.” 138c.

17

API published this book to ensure its members could continue to produce and18sell fossil fuels in massive quantities that it knew would devastate the planet. The book’s final

19

section reveals this purpose. API concluded: “[S]evere reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by

20

the United States, or even all developed countries, would impose large costs on those countries

21

but yield little in the way of benefits—even under drastic climate change scenarios.” 139

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

124. The Fossil Fuel Defendants could have made major inroads towards mitigating theharms they caused, and in particular, the State’s injuries, by developing and employing
135

Ikard, Meeting the Challenges of 1966, in Proceedings of the American Petroleum
Institute (1965) p. 13, available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5348130-1965API-Proceedings (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
136
American Petroleum Institute, Reinventing Energy: Making the Right Choices (1996)
p. 79 (emphasis in original), available at https://www.climatefiles.com/trade-group/americanpetroleum-institute/1996-reinventing-energy/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
137
Id. at pp. 85-87.
138
Id. at pp. 59, 68, 69.
139
Id. at p. 89.
77
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

technologies to capture and sequester GHG emissions associated with conventional use of their2

fossil fuel products. The Fossil Fuel Defendants had knowledge of these technologies dating back3

at least to the 1960s, and, had indeed, internally researched many such technologies.

4

125. Even if the Fossil Fuel Defendants did not adopt technological or energy source5

alternatives that would have reduced the use of fossil fuel products, reduced global GHG

6pollution, and/or mitigated the harms associated with the use and consumption of such products,

7

the Fossil Fuel Defendants could have taken other practical, cost-effective steps to mitigate the8harms caused by their fossil fuel products. Those alternatives could have included, among other9

measures, the following:

10a.

Refraining from affirmative efforts, whether directly, through coalitions, or

11through front groups, to distort public debate, manipulate public perception and the public policy

12

agenda, and cause many consumers, business, and political leaders to think the relevant science is

13

far less certain than it actually is;

14b.

Acknowledging the validity of scientific evidence on anthropogenic climate

15

change and the damages it will cause people, communities (including the State), and the16environment. Disseminating that evidence would have changed the public policy agenda from17

determining whether to combat climate change to deciding how to combat it; avoided much of the18

public confusion that has ensued since at least 1988; and contributed to an earlier and quicker

19transition to cleaner energy sources in California that could help minimize catastrophic climatic

20

consequences;

21c.

Forthrightly communicating with consumers, the public, regulators,

22

shareholders, banks, insurers, and the State, and warning them about the global warming hazards

23

of fossil fuel products that were known to Defendants, which would have enabled those groups to24

make informed decisions about whether to curb the use of these products—including whether and25

to what extent to invest in alternative clean energy sources instead of in fossil fuels;

26

d.

Sharing their internal scientific research with consumers, lawmakers, and the27

public, as well as with other scientists and business leaders, to increase public understanding of28

the scientific underpinnings of climate change and its relation to fossil fuel products;
78
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1e.

Supporting and encouraging policies to avert catastrophic climate change, and2demonstrating corporate leadership in addressing the challenges of transitioning to a low-carbon

3

economy; and4f.

Prioritizing development of alternative sources of energy through sustained5

investment and research on renewable energy sources to replace dependence on hazardous fossil

6

fuel products.

7126. Despite their knowledge of the foreseeable harms associated with the consumption of

8

fossil fuel products, and despite the existence of, and the fossil fuel industry’s knowledge of,9opportunities to reduce the foreseeable dangers associated with those products, Defendants

10wrongfully promoted and concealed the hazards of using fossil fuel products, delaying

11

meaningful development of alternative energy sources and exacerbating the costs of adapting to

12and mitigating the adverse impacts of the climate crisis, including the climate crisis in California.

13

G.

14

Defendants Continue to Deceive California Consumers ThroughMisleading Advertisements That Portray Defendants as Climate-Friendly
Energy Companies and Obscure Their Role in Causing Climate Change

15127. Defendants’ deceptive conduct continues to the present day, albeit through updated

16

messaging. Now, rather than engaging in outright denials of the existence of climate change,

17

Defendants deflect attention from their role in causing climate change by falsely portraying fossil

18

fuel products as environmentally friendly, climate-friendly, or otherwise less environmentally19

damaging than those products really are.

20

128. Defendants have continued to mislead the public about the impact of fossil fuel21

products on climate change through “greenwashing.” Through recent advertising campaigns and22

public statements in California and/or intended to reach California, including but not limited to23

online advertisements and social media posts, Defendants falsely and misleadingly portray these24

products as “green,” and the Fossil Fuel Defendants portray themselves as climate-friendly

25

energy companies that are deeply engaged in finding solutions to climate change. In reality,

26

Fossil Fuel Defendants continue to primarily invest in, develop, promote, and profit from fossil

27

fuel products and heavily market those products to consumers, with full knowledge that those

28

products will continue to exacerbate climate change harms.
79
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1129. Defendants’ greenwashing exploits California consumers’ concerns about climate

2change and their desire to purchase “green” products and spend their consumer dollars on

3

products and businesses that are taking substantial and effective measures to combat climate

4change. Defendants’ false advertisements are likely to mislead California consumers by giving

5

the impression that in purchasing the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products, consumers are

6

supporting genuine, substantial, and effective measures to mitigate climate change through these7

companies’ alleged investments in clean energy. Defendants’ greenwashing ultimately attempts to

8persuade California consumers to support Defendants’ purported attempts to contribute to climate

9change solutions by purchasing and consuming these products, including the Fossil Fuel

10

Defendants’ fossil fuel products.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

130. Below are representative examples of Defendants’ greenwashing campaigns.
1.

Defendants’ Affirmative Promotion of Fossil Fuel Products as“Green,” “Clean,” or Otherwise Good for the Environment Is Likely
to Mislead California Consumers About How Use of Those Fossil
Fuel Products Leads to Climate Change131. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendants have attempted to deceive
consumers by promoting certain of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products asenvironmentally beneficial, when in fact Defendants knew that those products would continue tocontribute to climate change, and thus imperil the environment, if used as intended. These
products, which Defendants tout as “green,” “clean” and/or “cleaner,” and/or “environmentallyfriendly,” in fact result in the increase of GHG emissions, despite Defendants’ knowledge that,when used as designed and intended, these products lead to climate change.
132. Defendants have made these advertisements with the intention of capitalizing on
California consumers’ concern over environmental degradation. Because of a growing collective
realization of past environmental damage and increasingly severe current and anticipated futureclimate change harms, consumers more often seek to buy products that they believe will not
contribute to further injury to the environment. By advertising fossil fuel products asenvironmentally friendly, and with words, phrases, colors, and imagery that evoke positiveenvironmental attributes, Defendants seek to convince consumers that fossil fuel products are
80
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

beneficial to the environment. Reasonable consumers—i.e., a significant portion of the general2

consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably under the circumstances—are3

likely to be misled by Defendants’ advertisements into believing that these products do not4contribute to substantial injury to the environment. However, these supposedly environmentally5

friendly fossil fuel products, through increased GHG emissions, contribute to the sweeping

6

environmental degradation caused by climate change—just as other fossil fuel products do. By

7promoting fossil fuel products as environmentally beneficial, Defendants exploit concerned

8

consumers’ goodwill and mislead them into purchasing products that they believe will be part of9

the solution, even though Defendants are aware that these products only exacerbate the problem.

10133. Defendants’ marketing of fossil fuel products as environmentally beneficial follows

11

in the footsteps of the tobacco industry’s advertising campaigns to de-emphasize, and confuse the12public about, the deadly effects of smoking cigarettes. Just as tobacco companies promoted “low-13tar” and “light” cigarettes, inducing consumers to think of them as healthy alternatives to quitting

14

smoking, while knowing that smoking “healthy” cigarettes was still harmful to human health, so

15

too do Defendants peddle “low-carbon” and “emissions-reducing” fossil fuel products to persuade

16

consumers that those products are climate-friendly alternatives to traditional fossil fuels. In

17reality, the fossil fuel products they describe as “low-carbon,” “clean” and/or “cleaner,” “green,”

18

and “emissions-reducing” in fact contribute to climate change and are harmful to the health of the19planet and its people.

20

134. Below are representative examples of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ advertisements to

21

California consumers that misleadingly portray fossil fuels as environmentally beneficial or

22benign and fail to mention the products’ role in causing environmentally injurious climate

23

change. The emphasis on lower emissions, “cleaning” terminology, and positive environmental

24

imagery and messaging—individually and together—in Defendants’ advertisements are likely to25

mislead reasonable consumers by suggesting that Defendants’ fuels are environmentally26

beneficial or benign when they contribute to climate change like any other fossil fuel product.

27

The examples are representative of Defendants’ other advertisements and public statements in

28
81
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

Defendants’ greater greenwashing strategy to confuse consumers about the consequences of using2

fossil fuel products and consequently to increase demand for those fossil fuel products.

3a.

Since at least 2016, Exxon has offered for sale and marketed its Synergy fossil

4

fuels, including, since at least 2020, at a substantial number of Exxon-branded gas stations in

5

California. In Exxon’s advertisements for its Synergy fuels, including those on or near the gas

6pumps at Exxon-branded gas stations in California, Exxon makes several claims that a reasonable

7

consumer would understand to mean that the Synergy fuels are beneficial or benign, and not8

harmful, to the environment. For example, Exxon consistently promotes Synergy fuels as “clean”

9or “cleaner,” and the company’s climate strategy mentions its Synergy fuel, claiming it can help

10

reduce GHG emissions. Exxon also cites Synergy’s alleged reduction of CO2 emissions in

11

Exxon’s advertisement of the company’s improved environmental performance. An

12advertisement on Exxon’s website, which is reproduced on the following page, includes an image

13

featuring a bright sunrise in a clear sky over hills of green grass, green trees, and little to no14

industrial or urban development.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
82
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Figure 7: ExxonMobil Fuels “Environmental Performance” website

22b.

In addition to its Synergy fuels, Exxon offers for sale, and has marketed, Mobil

23

1™ ESP x2 motor oil to California consumers. From 2016 through at least 2022, Exxon promoted

24

Mobil 1™ ESP x2 on the website Energy Factor—effectively a corporate blog for Exxon, in25

which Exxon claims to discuss developing safe and reliable energy sources for the future—in a26

post titled, “Green motor oil? ExxonMobil scientists deliver an unexpected solution.” According27

to its advertisement of Mobil 1™ ESP x2, Exxon specially formulated the green oil to “contribute28

to [] carbon-emission reduction efforts.” Exxon’s advertising suggests to the consumer that83
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1purchase and use of this motor oil conveys an environmental benefit, when in fact the opposite is

2

true.

3

c.

Shell also offers for sale and markets in California gasoline and oil products.

4

Shell describes its products as “cleaning” and that their use “produces fewer emissions.” Shell’s

5

repeated claim that its products are clean, and its frequent use of green and environmentally

6

positive imagery in its marketing materials, individually and together, are likely to mislead

7

reasonable consumers into believing that Shell’s fuels are environmentally beneficial or benign,8

when in fact they are fossil fuels which, when used as designed and intended, contribute to9climate change.

10d.

Similarly, Chevron’s gasoline offered for sale and marketed in California,

11

Chevron with Techron, is marketed as having “cleaning power” that minimizes emissions.

12

Chevron’s repeated emphasis on “cleaning” terminology, its focus in its marketing materials on

13“advancing a lower carbon future,” and its express solicitation of consumers who “care for the14

environment,” are likely to mislead reasonable consumers by suggesting that Chevron’s fuels are15

environmentally beneficial or benign, when they are not.

16e.

ConocoPhillips, through its 76-branded gas stations in California, offers for sale17

and markets its 76-brand fossil fuels. In ConocoPhillips’s advertisements for its 76-brand fuels,

18

including advertisements on or near the pumps at 76-branded gas stations in California,

19

ConocoPhillips claims that its fuels “clean” a car’s engine, resulting in “lower emissions, and that20

deposits left from other gasolines “can increase emissions.” ConocoPhillips advertises that 76’s

21

fossil fuels are “better for the environment.” The 76 website for 76’s fuels contains the marketing

22

materials shown below, in which ConocoPhillips makes the claim—superimposed on an image of23

a bluebird standing on a car’s side mirror and looking at the viewer, with silhouetted trees in the24background—that 76 and its fossil fuels align with the values of environmentally conscious

25

consumers: “We’re on the driver’s side®. And the environment’s.”

26
27
28
84
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Figure 8: ConocoPhillips 76 Fuels Website: Top Tier Gas

10135. The Fossil Fuel Defendants also collectively promote their petroleum and natural gas

11

products through Defendant API, which makes public statements and claims about oil and natural

12

gas. These include advertisements and promotional campaign websites that have been directed at

13

and/or reached California, which reasonable consumers would understand to mean that the Fossil

14

Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuels are beneficial or benign, not harmful, to the environment. In

15particular, API’s marketing material falsely promotes the narrative that natural gas is an16

environmentally friendly fuel.

17

136. In several advertisements in The Washington Post—e.g., “Why natural gas will thrive18

in the age of renewables,” “Real climate solutions won’t happen without natural gas and oil,”19“Low- and no-carbon future starts with natural gas”—API has misleadingly touted natural gas as

20“part of the solution” to climate change. API claims natural gas is “clean.” API also promotes

21

natural gas’s purported benefits through a campaign titled “Energy for a Cleaner Environment.”

22

As part of this campaign, API has offered on its website, in social media posts, and in other23

advertisements that have reached Californians, the image on the following page, of lush greenery24

and a message that “88% of Americans favor energy companies helping meet environmental

25

challenges.” API elaborates within the advertisement that “natural gas and oil [] powers and26

supports modern living . . . with lower emissions.”

27
28
85
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Figure 9: API, We Are America’s Generation Energy
137. API further claims, falsely, that, “[n]atural gas is an economical, environmentallyfriendly complement to renewable energy. The sooner green activists realize that, the more
effective they’ll be at continuing to slash emissions.” API’s misleading messaging regarding thealleged environmental benefits of natural gas, coupled with its positive environmental imagery
and messaging, is likely to mislead reasonable consumers by suggesting that fossil fuels, inparticular natural gas, are environmentally beneficial and not harmful to the climate. In reality,
the majority of natural gas is derived from fossil fuels, and its primary constituent is methane, apotent greenhouse gas which plays a significant role in accelerating climate change. Methane hasa relatively short lifespan, but its “global warming potential” is approximately 28 times greaterthan an equivalent weight of carbon dioxide over a 100-year time period, and approximately 84
times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe. Accounting for methane leaks,
86
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1flaring, and venting in production and supply chains, the net GHG emissions of natural gas are on

2

par with—and sometimes higher than—the GHG emissions from coal combustion. Moreover,3

combustion of methane for use as a fuel emits carbon dioxide. Methane is the second largest

4component of GHG emissions in California, behind carbon dioxide.

5

2.

6

Defendants’ Affirmative Claims That They Contribute Substantiallyto Climate Change Solutions Are Likely to Mislead California
Consumers

7138. Recognizing a shift in consumer knowledge and understanding of climate change,

8

Defendants have changed tactics from seeking to deceive the public about the science and reality

9of climate change to deceptively portraying themselves as part of the solution to climate change.

10

The Fossil Fuel Defendants tout their climate-friendly investments in “clean” fuels and renewable

11energy, when in fact those investments are nonexistent or miniscule in comparison to the Fossil

12

Fuel Defendants’ investments in developing and expanding their fossil fuel production. In many13

cases, those “clean” fuels themselves contribute substantially to climate change. Defendants also

14market themselves as being in alignment with international goals to reduce GHG emissions, while

15

instead working to grow the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel businesses. Thus, Defendants’

16

efforts to mislead the public about climate change have not stopped. Defendants have simply

17

shifted gears to engage in a different form of deceptive conduct. In doing so, their marketing

18

seeks to mislead California consumers into believing another lie: that Defendants have made and19

are making substantial contributions to solving climate change.

20

139. By deceptively portraying themselves and their products as part of the climate

21

solution, rather than as the problem, Defendants’ advertisements induce consumers to purchase22

fossil fuel products and develop brand affinity under the misimpression that purchasing and using

23

fossil fuels will somehow contribute to a “greener” energy future rather than contributing to24

climate change.

25

140. In reality, the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ expansion of their fossil fuel businesses and26

insubstantial investments in non-GHG-emitting technology belie Defendants’ purported

27

commitments to solving climate change. The following are but a few examples of Defendants’28
87Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

attempts to falsely portray themselves as being aligned with solutions to the climate crisis, rather

2than continuing to be the problem.

3141. Exxon has announced its ambition to achieve net-zero GHG emissions by 2050, and4

touts its commitment to helping society reach a lower-emissions future. Exxon has heavily

5

promoted its investment in developing algae for use as a biofuel to reduce emissions and combat

6

climate change. Exxon’s advertising tells consumers that Exxon is working to decrease its carbon

7

footprint and that its research is leading toward “A Greener Energy Future. Literally.”

8142. Exxon’s investment in potential renewable fuels, such as biofuels, has been miniscule9compared to its overall profits and to its investments in developing and expanding its fossil fuels10business. One analysis comparing Exxon’s advertised goal of producing 10,000 barrels of

11

biofuels per day by 2025 to Exxon’s fossil fuel refinery operations found that the goal for biofuel

12

production would amount to only 0.2% of Exxon’s refinery capacity, as reported in 2019—in

13

essence, a rounding error. Also, Exxon’s advertisements touting the development of biofuels from

14

plant waste substantially overplayed the likely environmental benefits by failing to acknowledge

15

the intensive energy required to process that plant waste, which would create substantial

16

additional GHG emissions.

17

143. As of late 2022, Exxon quietly abandoned its investments in developing algae as a18

biofuel, but Exxon continues to invest in its development of fossil fuels, as it has done for

19

decades.

20

144. Shell also falsely portrays itself to consumers as part of the climate solution. Shell

21

claims that it aims to become a net-zero emissions 140 energy business by 2050, and that it is22“tackling climate change.” However, in June 2023, Shell announced that it would no longer

23

reduce annual oil and gas production through the end of the decade as previously announced,

24

after selling off oil-producing assets and claiming the reduction in its own production as a25

reduction in emissions. Shell’s CEO told the BBC that cutting oil and gas production would be

26“dangerous and irresponsible.” Moreover, in advertisements in The New York Times and The

27
28

140

“Net-zero” means achieving a balance between the carbon emitted into the atmosphere,
and the carbon removed from it.
88
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

Washington Post, Shell touts its investments in “lower-carbon transport fuels,” including natural2

gas. In “The Mobility Quandary,” under a “Finding Sustainable Solutions” banner, Shell singles

3

out natural gas as “a critical component of a sustainable energy mix” and a “cleaner-burning

4

fossil fuel.” In “The Making of Sustainable Mobility,” Shell describes natural gas as “a cleaner

5fossil fuel” with a “lighter carbon footprint.” Shell’s advertising fails to acknowledge, however,

6

that development and use of natural gas produces potent GHGs, like methane, that contribute to7climate change, and is far from a “clean” or “sustainable” energy source, let alone a solution to8climate change. As discussed above, natural gas is a significant contributor to climate change:

9methane from natural gas is a GHG that exacerbates climate change, and methane emissions

10

associated with natural gas exploration, development, and use are 28 to 84 times as powerful as

11

CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere.

12

145. Moreover, Shell’s investments in clean energy pale in comparison with its

13

investments in fossil fuel production. In the first half of 2023, Shell reported $11.6 billion in total

14

spending, of which less than $1 billion went to renewables and “energy solutions”—a category

15

that also includes fossil fuel investments such as marketing and trading of pipeline gas. In 2018,16

speaking at the Oil and Money conference in the U.K., Shell’s CEO, after acknowledging the17

challenge of climate change and referring to recent headlines about Shell’s investments in the18

clean energy industry, such as acquiring the renewable electricity company First Utility, said,

19“even headlines that are true can be misleading. They might even make people think we have20

gone soft on the future of oil and gas. If they did think that, they would be wrong.” Leaving no21

doubt about Shell’s plans regarding clean, renewable energy, or lack thereof, he stated that

22

“Shell’s core business is, and will be for the foreseeable future, very much in oil and gas.”23

146. Using a remarkably similar playbook, Chevron claims that it “is committed to24

addressing climate change” and touts its intentions to invest billions of dollars in carbon reduction

25

projects, as well as its net-zero “aspirations.” And Chevron’s director states in a 2021 report, “We

26

believe the future of energy will be lower carbon, and we intend to be a leader in that future.” Its27

CEO claims that Chevron’s “work to create fuels of the future—like hydrogen, renewable diesel,28

and sustainable aviation fuel—seeks to lower the carbon intensity of these products and support
89
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

our customers’ efforts to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.” Chevron representatives have2even delivered public seminars at top educational institutions, deceptively claiming Chevron uses3

its “unique capabilities, assets and expertise to deliver progress” toward the global ambition of

4achieving net-zero carbon emissions.

5147. Chevron’s minimal efforts in the area of renewable and lower-carbon energy, coupled

6with its expansion of its fossil fuel business, belie its statements suggesting that it is part of the

7climate change solution. Chevron in fact sold its only renewable energy holding in 2018.

8

Moreover, from 2010 to 2018, according to one analysis, Chevron’s investments in low-carbon

9energy sources were only 0.2% of Chevron’s capital spending, compared to 99.8% in continuing

10

its fossil fuel exploration and development. Chevron to this day continues to prioritize capital

11

expenditures in its traditional fossil fuel business over its investments in renewable and low-

12

carbon energy.

13148. ConocoPhillips claims, similarly, that its “actions for our oil and gas operations are

14aligned with the aims of the Paris Agreement” and touts its actions and achievements toward the15

net-zero energy transition. But these claims are contradicted by the company’s substantial

16

investments in expanding its fossil fuel production and sales. For example, the company’s new

17

Willow Project in Alaska is expected to produce approximately 576 million barrels of oil, with18

associated indirect GHG emissions equivalent to 239 million tons of CO2.

19149. BP also has misleadingly portrayed itself, and continues to misleadingly portray

20

itself, as a climate leader, claiming that it aims to be a net-zero company by 2050 or sooner and to21

help the world get there too. Further, BP emphasized in its “Possibilities Everywhere” campaign,

22

which it ended in 2020, the company’s investments in renewable energy, such as solar and wind

23

energy, and “cleaner” energy like natural gas. In its “Blade Runner” advertisement, BP claims

24

that it is “one of the major wind energy businesses in the US.” In these advertisements, BP failed

25

to mention that its investments in clean energy resources have been relatively meager. From 201026

to 2018, according to one analysis, BP only devoted 2.3% of its capital expenditures to clean

27

energy development. BP also failed to mention that in 2019, at the time of its “Blade Runner”

28

advertisement, BP only owned about 1% of the installed wind capacity in the U.S. Moreover, at a90Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1time of record-breaking profits, BP is scaling back its plan to lower emissions by 2030, and BP2continues to make significant investments in fossil fuel production, refining, and sales.

3150. API is also no stranger to misleading the public into believing that its and its

4

members’ actions are part of the solution, rather than the source of the problem. API markets

5

itself as being an environmental steward, committed to helping reduce GHG emissions. API’s

62021 Climate Action Framework portrays the organization as a partner in moving towards a

7climate solution, stating: “Our industry is essential to supplying energy that makes life modern,8healthier and better while doing so in ways that tackle the climate challenge: lowering emissions,9

increasing efficiency, advancing technological innovation, building modern infrastructure and

10more.” Tellingly, however, API’s strategy does not advocate for or even mention reduction in

11

fossil fuel production as a strategy to protect the climate. Rather, it focuses on potential technical12

advances and shifting to heavier reliance on natural gas as a “clean fuel.” And an internal API

13

email shows that its Climate Action Framework was in fact organized around the purpose of “the14

continued promotion of natural gas in a carbon constrained economy.” As discussed above,15

natural gas is far from a “clean” fuel, as API misleadingly claims, as natural gas production and16

use contributes substantially to climate change through the release of methane, an extremely

17potent greenhouse gas.

18

H.

19

Defendants’ Concealments and Misrepresentations Regarding the Dangers
of Fossil Fuel Products Encouraged Continued Use of Fossil Fuels andDiscouraged Concerted Action on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

20

151. As a result of Defendants’ efforts to deny and undermine climate science and conceal

21

the dangers of fossil fuel consumption, Defendants encouraged consumers to continue to use

22

fossil fuels and discouraged policymakers from imposing regulations limiting the use of fossil

23

fuels.

24

152. As a result of Defendants’ sustained and widespread campaign of disinformation,

25

many California consumers have been unaware of the strength of the scientific consensus about

26

the relationship between consumption of fossil fuels and climate change, the magnitude of the27

threat posed by their own use of fossil fuels, or of the contribution their purchasing behavior

28

makes to aggravating the effects of climate change.
91
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1153. By misleading California consumers about the climate impacts of using fossil fuel2

products, and by failing to disclose the climate risks associated with their purchase and use of3

those products, Defendants deprived consumers of information about the consequences of their4purchasing decisions. This led to consumers using more fossil fuels, and using fossil fuels less5

efficiently, than they otherwise would have done in the absence of Defendants’ deception.

6

154. As with cigarettes, history demonstrates that when consumers are made aware of the7

harmful effects or qualities of the products they purchase, they often choose to stop purchasing

8

them, to reduce their purchases, or to make different purchasing decisions. This phenomenon

9holds especially true when products have been shown to harm public health or the environment.

10

For example, increased consumer awareness of the role of plastics in harming human health and11the environment has spurred a growing market for plastic-free products and packaging. With

12

access to information about health and environmental impacts, consumers have demanded

13

healthier choices, and the market has responded.

14

155. A consumer who received accurate information that fossil fuel use was a primary

15

driver of climate change, and about the resultant dangers to the environment and to public health,16

might have decreased the consumer’s use of fossil fuel products and/or demanded lower-carbon

17transportation options from policymakers. Indeed, recent studies and surveys have found that18

consumers with substantial awareness of climate change are largely willing “to change their19

consumption habits . . . to help reduce the impacts of climate change.” 141 If consumers were

20

aware of what the Defendants knew about climate change when the Defendants knew it,

21

consumers might have opted to avoid or minimize airplane travel; avoid or combine car travel

22

trips; carpool; switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles, hybrid vehicles, or electric vehicles; demand23

more charging infrastructure for electric vehicles; use a car-sharing service; seek transportation

24

alternatives all or some of the time, if and when available (e.g., public transportation, biking, or25

walking); or adopt any combination of these choices. In addition, informed consumers often

26
27
28

141

The Conference Board, Changes in Consumers’ Habits Related to Climate Change
May Require New Marketing and Business Models (Oct. 26, 2022), available athttps://www.conference-board.org/topics/consumers-attitudes-sustainability/changes-inconsumer-habits-related-to-climate-change (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
92
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

attempt to contribute toward solving environmental problems by supporting companies that they2

perceive to be developing “green” or more environmentally friendly products. 142

3156. As described herein, by casting doubt upon the scientific consensus on climate

4change, Defendants deceived consumers about the relationship between consumption of fossil

5

fuels and climate change, and the magnitude of the threat posed by fossil fuel use. Consumers

6

equipped with complete and accurate knowledge about the climate and the public health effects of7

continued consumption of fossil fuels would have likely formed a receptive customer base for8clean energy alternatives decades before such demand in fact developed. Instead, Defendants’

9

campaign of deception allowed them to exploit public uncertainty to reap substantial profits.

10157. As described herein, Defendants’ campaign of deception was also aimed at

11

discouraging policymakers and lawmakers from taking action on climate change. By

12

downplaying the scientific consensus on climate change and emphasizing uncertainty, Defendants

13

hoped to delay any regulatory action that might seek to reduce or control GHG emissions, thereby

14threatening the industry’s profits. 143

15158. By sowing doubt in the minds of consumers, the media, policymakers, and the public

16

about the magnitude and the urgency of climate threats, Defendants delayed regulatory action on

17

GHG emissions, exacerbating the climate crisis and causing significant harm to California and its

18

residents.

19

I.

20

159. The consequences of Defendants’ tortious misconduct—in the form of

The Effects of Defendants’ Deceit Are Ongoing21

misrepresentations, omissions, and deceit—began decades ago, and continue to be felt to this day.

22

As described above, Defendants, directly and/or through membership in other organizations,

23
24
25
26
27
28

142

See, e.g., Leiserwitz et al., Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale
University, and Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University,
Consumer Activism on Global Warming, September 2021 (2021), available athttps://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/consumer-activism-onglobal-warming-september-2021.pdf (as of Sept. 14, 2023). About a third of American consumers
surveyed report “reward[ing] companies that are taking steps to reduce global warming by buying
their products” and “punish[ing] companies that are opposing steps to reduce global warming by
not buying their products” (id. at p. 3).
143
See, e.g., supra, ¶¶ 51, 97.
93Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

misrepresented their own activities, the fact that their products cause climate change, and the2danger presented by climate change.

3160. Defendants’ collective goal was to ensure that “[a] majority of the American public,4

including industry leadership, recognizes that significant uncertainties exist in climate science,5

and therefore raises questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on

6

global climate change.” 144 In 2023, only 20% of Americans understand how strong the level of7

consensus is among scientists that human-caused global warming is happening, and 28% think

8

climate change is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment. 145

9161. Defendants’ misrepresentations, omissions, and deceit had a significant and long-10

lasting effect on how the public views climate change and the dangers of fossil fuel use that

11

continues to the present day. By sowing doubt in the minds of the public, Defendants

12

substantially altered the public discourse on climate change, and intentionally delayed action on

13

climate change.

14

162. If Defendants had been forthcoming about their own climate research and15

understanding of the dangers of fossil fuel products, consumers, policymakers, and the public

16

could have made substantial progress in transitioning to a lower-carbon economy, at a much

17earlier time, potentially averting some of the effects of the climate crisis that California is

18

experiencing today.

19163. Moreover, by concealing the very fact of their campaign of deception, including by

20

using front groups to obscure their own involvement in the deception, Defendants concealed their21

unlawful conduct from the public and the State, thereby preventing the State from discovering the22

facts underlying the claims alleged herein.

23
24
25
26
27
28

144

Joe Walker, email to Global Climate Science Team re Draft Global Climate Science
Communications Plan (Apr. 3, 1998), available athttps://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/784572/api-global-climate-science-communicationsplan.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
145
Leiserowitz et al., Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale University, andCenter for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University, Climate Change in theAmerican Mind: Beliefs & Attitudes, Spring 2023 (2023) pp. 3, 8, available athttps://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-american-mindbeliefs-attitudes-spring-2023/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).
94
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1
2
3
4

164. Due to Defendants’ deceptive and misleading conduct, California is in the throes of aclimate crisis—one that would have been avoidable in part had Defendants acted differently.
J.

The State Has Suffered, Is Suffering, and Will Suffer Injuries from
Defendants’ Wrongful Conduct5

165. Defendants’ individual and collective conduct is a substantial factor in causing harms

6

to California. This conduct includes, but is not limited to, their wrongful promotion of fossil fuel7

products, their concealment of the known hazards associated with the use of those products, and8

their public deception campaigns designed to obscure the connection between these products and9climate change and its public health, environmental, physical, social, and economic

10

consequences. Such consequences include, but are not limited to, the following: extreme heat;11

drought; wildfires; increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including coastal

12

and inland storms and associated flooding; habitat loss and species impacts; sea level rise and13

attendant flooding, erosion, damage to riparian lands and submerged lands, and loss of wetlands

14

and beaches; ocean warming and acidification; and the cascading social, economic, health, and15

other consequences of these environmental changes. These adverse impacts will continue to16

increase in frequency and severity in California and disproportionately impact frontline

17

communities.

18

166. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, which was a substantial

19

factor in bringing about the aforementioned environmental changes, the State has suffered and20

will continue to suffer severe harms and losses. These include, but are not limited to, the21

following: increased costs associated with public health impacts, environmental impacts, and22

economic impacts; injury or destruction of state-owned or -operated facilities and property

23

deemed critical for operations, utility services, and risk management, as well as other assets that24

are essential to community health, safety, and well-being; increased costs for responding to25

increasingly frequent natural disasters and increasingly intense weather events, including extreme

26

heat, drought, wildfires, coastal and inland storms and associated flooding, and extreme

27

precipitation events; and increased planning and preparation costs for community adaptation and28

resilience to climate change’s effects.
95Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1167. The State has incurred, and will foreseeably continue to incur, as a result of2

Defendants’ deceptive conduct as described in this Complaint, injuries due to delays in taking

3

action to mitigate or curtail the climate crisis. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct,

4

California has experienced, is experiencing, and will continue to experience significant adverse

5

impacts, including, but not limited to, those described below.

6
7

1.

Extreme Heat

168. California is being impacted and will continue to be impacted in years and decades to8come by higher average temperatures and more frequent and severe heat waves. The last nine9

years have been the nine hottest on record, and that trend is only expected to continue. These

10changes will pose a risk to every region of the state. Severe harms from rising temperatures are

11

already a reality in many frontline communities. Members of frontline communities tend to work12

in occupations with increased exposure to extreme heat, such as the agricultural, construction, and13delivery industries.

14

169. Globally, increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and other gases in the15

atmosphere are causing a continuing increase in the planet’s average temperature. California

16

temperatures have risen since records began in 1895, and the rate of increase is accelerating.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Figure 10: Statewide Annual Average Temperatures
96
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1170. Death Valley recorded the world’s highest reliably measured temperature (130° F) in2

July 2021, breaking its own record (129° F) set in summer 2020. Meanwhile, the City of Fresno

3

also broke one of its own records in 2021, with 64 days over 100° F that year. This is part of a4

trend: the daily maximum average temperature, an indicator of extreme temperature shifts, is5

expected to rise by 4.4° F to 5.8° F by 2050 and by 5.6° F to 8.8° F by 2100. Heat waves that6

result in public health impacts are also projected to worsen throughout California. By 2050, these7

heat-related health events are projected to last two weeks longer in the Central Valley and occur

8four to ten times more often in the Northern Sierra region.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Figure 11: Projected California Temperature Increases 146

24
25
26
27
28

146

RCP in this graph refers to Representative Concentration Pathways, which areprojections based on the emissions scenarios used by the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report. There
are four RCPs (2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5), and each RCP represents a family of possible underlying
socioeconomic conditions, policy options, and technological considerations, from a low-end
scenario (RCP 2.6) that requires significant emissions reductions to a high-end, “business-asusual,” fossil fuel-intensive emission scenario (RCP 8.5).
97Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1171. Recent heat waves have broken heat records and caused serious illness across the2state, and these events are becoming more frequent. Heat waves have a particularly high impact in

3Southern California, where they have become more intense and longer-lasting. In the past two

4years, Los Angeles recorded 121° F, and the Coachella Valley had its hottest year ever, with5

temperatures reaching 123° F. In urbanized environments, pavement, cement, and other non-6vegetated areas contribute to the “heat island” effect, in which built environments retain heat,7

causing daytime temperatures to be 1° to 6° F hotter than rural areas and nighttime temperatures8

to be as much as 22° F hotter. The heat island effect is inequitably distributed, and9disproportionately affects frontline communities. Heat events exacerbate respiratory and cardiac

10

illness and cause emergency room visits to soar. Young children, the elderly, people with

11

preexisting health conditions, and African Americans are more vulnerable than the rest of the

12

population to extreme heat events.

13172. Heat ranks among the deadliest of all climate hazards in California, and heat waves in

14

cities are projected to cause two to three times more heat-related deaths by mid-century. Frontline

15

communities will experience the worst of these effects, as heat risk is associated and correlated16with physical, social, political, and economic factors.

17173. Heat events also lead to increased poultry and livestock mortality, which can lead to18

potentially adverse impacts to public health, animal health, and the environment, and resultant

19

economic losses. Hotter weather can deteriorate the integrity of containment systems at toxic

20

waste sites.

21

174. Extreme heat also threatens California’s natural systems. Increasing temperatures, for

22example, lead to exacerbated risk of wildfire; drought and its effects on the health of watersheds;

23

and negative effects on plants and animals, including reduced fitness, increased stress, decreased

24

reproduction, migration, death, and in some cases extinction. These shifts result in significant

25

cultural impacts to tribes, where plants and animals that have been used as traditional food,26

medicine, materials, or in ceremonies are no longer available.

27
28
98
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1
2
3

2.

Drought and Water Shortages

175. Anthropogenic warming has increased the likelihood, frequency, and duration of
extreme droughts in California.

4176. Over the last three years, the State has earmarked more than $8 billion to modernize

5water infrastructure and management, as part of planning for a potential loss of 10% of its water6

supplies by 2040 due to climate change.

7177. California’s five-year drought of 2012 to 2016 occurred in a setting of then-record

8statewide warmth and set numerous hydrologic and impact records, including lowest statewide

9

snowpack, groundwater levels in many parts of California falling below previous historical lows,

10

and severe resultant land subsidence. This event was soon followed by the 2020-2023 drought,

11

which again set new hydrologic records.

12

178. Snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountains serves as a vital water storage and supply

13

system for California, supplying roughly 30% of the state’s water needs in an average year.

14

Warmer winter temperatures caused by climate change are reducing the fraction of precipitation

15

falling as snow, and increased evaporation is reducing snowpack volume. Recent projections

16

show that the Sierra snowpack could decline to less than two-thirds of its historical average by

172050, even if precipitation remains relatively stable.

18

179. Warmer temperatures in the spring and summer cause the snowpack to melt earlier

19

and more quickly. This rapid melting can result in flooding, and can reduce California’s supplies

20of water stored in reservoirs.

21

180. Warmer average temperatures across California will increase moisture loss from22

soils, which leads to drier summers even if winter precipitation increases. Climate projections

23

show that the seasonal summer dryness in California may start earlier in the spring due to earlier

24

soil drying, and last longer into the fall and winter.

25

181. Droughts have significant environmental, social, and economic repercussions in

26

California, and their impacts are widespread. The 2012-2016 and 2020-2022 droughts impacted27

most of California and required statewide responses. Future climate-exacerbated droughts are28

expected to harm the State and its people by, among other things, causing drinking water
99
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1shortages, damaging the State’s agricultural industry, depleting groundwater, devastating aquatic2

ecosystems, increasing the intensity and severity of wildfires, reducing the availability of

3hydroelectricity, and harming human health.

4182. Drinking water shortages primarily affect small drinking water systems and domestic

5

wells, which are often found in rural communities. In 2015, more than 100 small water systems

6experienced water shortages, and more than 2,000 domestic wells went dry. These vulnerable

7

systems are located throughout California, and approximately half serve frontline communities. In

8the 2012-2016 drought, some rural frontline communities in the San Joaquin Valley relied on

9bottled water, interim tanks, and filling buckets and barrels with water from neighboring

10

communities. From July 2021 to August 2023, the State spent over $100 million providing

11

emergency bottled and hauled water to communities experiencing drinking water shortages.

12183. California is the top agriculture-producing state in the nation, accounting for more

13

than 60% of the country’s production of vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruit and nut

14crops. The state’s agricultural industry accounts for 40% of total water use in an average year.

15

Drought conditions can result in crop losses and decreased agriculture production, and future

16

water shortages are expected to limit agricultural suitability for various crops. The resulting

17

economic damages will be substantial—in 2016 alone, the impacts of drought on California’s

18

agriculture industry resulted in over $600 million in direct economic damages and the loss of

19

4,700 jobs.

20

184. Reliance on groundwater increases during droughts, when surface water storage is21

depleted due to reduced precipitation and low snowpack. Overdraft of groundwater may cause

22

land subsidence, which can impact infrastructure—including water conveyance systems, roads,

23

railways, bridges—aquifer storage capacity, and land topography. Increased groundwater

24

pumping during drought also worsens groundwater quality, causing increased contamination of25

drinking water supplies. Under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which was passed

26

in 2014, the State has spent more than $300 million to fund Groundwater Sustainability Agencies

27

to manage groundwater resources at the local level.

28
100Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1185. Drought harms aquatic ecosystems by causing low water flows, which, among other2

things, negatively impact water quality by affecting factors like temperature and salinity and3increasing the concentration of pollutants in water. As many as 18 California native fish species

4would have been at high risk of extinction if the 2012-2016 drought had continued. Drought has

5contributed to a precipitous decline in Chinook salmon populations in California and led to an

6

economically devastating shutdown of California’s salmon fishery in 2023. Drought also reduces

7

water availability for California’s managed wetlands, harming millions of migratory birds that8

rely on those wetlands by reducing food and habitat availability.

9186. Dry conditions produced by droughts can lead to more intense and severe wildfires. A

102016 study found that climate-induced warming and drying have created a favorable environment

11

for fires, doubling the area burned by forest fires over the area expected to burn from natural

12

climate variability alone from 1984 to 2015. Several of the largest, most destructive, and deadliest

13

wildfires in state history followed the 2012-2016 drought. The second largest in the State’s

14

history, the Dixie Fire, occurred during the 2021 drought year. For additional discussion of15

wildfire harms, see Section IV.J.3, infra.

16

187. Drought can also affect human health by increasing harmful algal blooms, altering

17

patterns of certain vector-borne diseases, increasing the risk of water-borne diseases, and18

increasing air pollution from wildfires and dust storms.

19
20
21

188. The State has borne and will continue to bear the substantial costs associated with
mitigating and responding to climate-exacerbated drought impacts.
3.

Extreme Wildfire

22

189. Climate change has caused and will continue to cause an accelerated increase in the23

risk, occurrence, and intensity of wildfires in California, resulting in wildfire-related injuries to24

the State and its residents.

25

190. Wildfire has always been an essential element of California’s ecology; however,26

climate change is leading to disruptions in the state’s natural temperature and precipitation27

patterns that have helped maintain the healthy, balanced role of wildfire in California. The result28

is a wildfire crisis. Increasingly higher temperatures coupled with longer and more intense101Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1droughts have led to substantially drier vegetation and fuel loads across the state that are more

2

easily ignitable during periods of hotter conditions, which are becoming more frequent and more

3

intense in California under climate change. The wildfire season is beginning earlier in the year

4and ending later, and the footprint of wildfire in California has expanded due to climate change.

5

More than 23 million acres of California wildlands, extended over half the state, are classified as

6

under very high risk of fire, the highest fire hazard severity level. As demonstrated in the figures

7

below, in 2023 compared to in 2007, more areas are at risk of fire, with increased severity of that8risk in many areas.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Figure 12: Fire Hazards Severity Zones, 2007 (adopted) and 2023 (proposed)

23
24

Similarly, summer forest burned area during 1996 to 2021 showed a fivefold increase compared25

to the years 1971 to 1995, and one recent study found that nearly all of the increase in burned area

26

is due to anthropogenic climate change.

27
28
102
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1191. The evidence is unequivocal that both the severity and intensity of wildfires in2

California are increasing as a result of climate change. Most of the largest and most destructive

3

fires in California’s history have occurred since 2000, as illustrated by the following chart:

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Figure 13: Largest and Most Destructive Wildfires in California

15

Nine of the 20 largest fires ever in California occurred in 2020 and 2021, after some of the driest

16

and hottest years on record. California saw its largest wildfire season in 2020, when over 4.3

17

million acres burned (over 4% of the land within California, an area larger than the State of18

Rhode Island). In that season California also suffered its first gigafire, the August Complex Fire,

19

which burned over a million acres through seven counties. The Camp Fire in 2018 burned fiercely

20

and spread so rapidly that it destroyed the town of Paradise, California, in the fire’s first four

21

hours. The fire was the most destructive and costliest ever in the world, resulting in nearly 19,000

22structures destroyed and over $16 billion in property damage. The fire was also the deadliest in

23

California’s history, with 85 civilian fatalities.

24

192. Related climate change impacts drive the increased risk, occurrence, and intensity of25

wildfire in California by impairing the health of forests and vegetation and creating conditions

26

primed for megafires. Episodes of ever-more extreme drought are parching landscapes across27

California. Higher temperatures and diminishing quantities of available water create increasingly

28

inhospitable conditions for trees at lower elevations and in hotter, drier southern regions.
103
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1Consequently, new forest trees gravitate northward and upslope, leaving stressed and dying trees

2behind. Dead trees are more flammable than live trees, furthering California’s wildfire risk. More3frequent climate change-induced extreme weather events, such as extended periods of dry, hot,4

high winds and dry lightning storms, combine with the dangerous conditions on the ground not

5

only to create more wildfires in California but also to fan their flames. In 2020, during one of6

California’s worst periods of drought, a severe dry lightning storm followed by dry high winds

7

passed through Central and Northern California and sparked hundreds of wildfires. These fires

8

were so intense, expansive, and numerous that they became known as the 2020 Fire Siege. This9

was a perfect storm of conditions, driven by climate change, creating catastrophic fires.

10

193. These catastrophic, climate change-driven wildfires result in substantial losses to the11State’s financial resources. While the State only owns about 3% (approximately one million

12

acres) of the forestlands within California’s boundaries, the State is financially responsible for13

wildfire protection for about 40% (over 31 million acres) of California’s wildlands

14(approximately 79 million acres), which include forestland, watershed, and rangeland. The State

15

spends billions of dollars on wildfire response annually; however, the cost of fighting more

16

extreme climate change-driven wildfires is increasing. The State budgets for its response to large

17

wildfires in the form of an emergency fund, which is funded each year based in part on the18

average costs of large wildfires over the previous five years. For the 2020-2021 fiscal year, the19State budgeted $373 million for the emergency fund, but spent over $1.3 billion from the20

emergency fund during the 2020 Fire Siege. In 2011, the State spent only about $90 million on

21

emergency fire suppression, but has not spent as little since.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
104
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Figure 14: State Spending on CAL FIRE

12

194. Once suppressed, climate change-driven wildfires leave shattered communities in

13

their wake, resulting in further financial loss to the State for wildfire recovery efforts. Increased

14

wildfire smoke blankets these communities with ash that contains hazardous chemicals, such as

15

the metals lead, cadmium, nickel, and arsenic; asbestos from older homes or other buildings;

16

perfluorochemicals; flame retardants; caustic materials; and other debris, all of which must be

17

removed before communities can rebuild. In addition to wildfire response, the State incurs further

18

costs for wildfire recovery, including removal of household hazardous waste and wildfire debris

19

in areas impacted by wildfire.

20

195. In addition to suppression and disaster response and recovery costs incurred by the21State, the total property loss from recent fire seasons has also climbed to several billions of22dollars per year.

23

196. Further, the State has lost precious natural resources to catastrophic, climate change-

24

driven wildfires. During the 2020 Fire Siege, for example, the CZU Lightning Complex Fire25

effectively destroyed the State’s oldest state park, Big Basin Redwoods State Park, and the26

surrounding forest of primarily coastal redwoods. The park lost all of its historic structures, and27

the awe-inspiring landscape of towering old- and second-growth coastal redwoods was razed.

28

While old-growth redwoods are known for fire resilience, and while many survived and are105
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1currently recovering, it is also becoming clear that changing climatic conditions such as hotter,2

drier summers and prolonged extreme drought will play a significant role in how the forest of Big

3

Basin Redwoods State Park declines or recovers in the decades to come. The vast majority of the4park remains closed indefinitely as it recovers from the damage.

5

197. Substantial natural resource costs from wildfire also extend beyond the forests.

6

Destruction from wildfires deteriorates watersheds, which stresses municipal water supplies and7treatment operations. Some smoke plumes from these megafires are so immense and hot that they8

form pyrocumulus clouds that create their own hazardous weather, such as lightning, hail, and9tornadoes. These gigantic billows of smoke travel thousands of miles at both high and low

10elevations, severely compromising air quality and harming public health.

11198. With the health of forests impaired and conditions worsening as the climate warms,

12

the State has incurred costs and will incur further costs to manage forestlands to prevent future13

catastrophic, climate change-driven wildfires. Recently, the State has devoted $2.7 billion over14

three years to address wildfire resiliency in California.

15
16
17
18

4.

Public Health Injuries

199. Climate change has caused and will continue to cause significant public health-related
injuries to the State and its residents.
200. Heat causes more reported deaths per year on average in the United States than any

19other weather hazard. Greater numbers of extreme heat events in California will result in20

increased risk of heat-related illnesses (from mild heat stress to fatal heat stroke). Certain groups

21

are more vulnerable to heat exposure. These include the elderly, young children, people with pre-22

existing health conditions (such as heart or lung disease), and African Americans. 147 Workers

23

who engage in vigorous physical activity, especially outdoors, are also at risk, including workers

24in construction, firefighting, and agriculture. Farmworkers die of heat-related causes at 20 times

25

the rate of the rest of the U.S. civilian workforce. Since 2005, the first year California began

26

tracking the number of heat-related fatalities, 36% of California’s heat-related worker deaths have

27
28

147

Heat deaths or illness are underreported or misclassified. Hence, the available data on
heat-related illnesses and deaths likely underestimate the full health impact of exposure to periodsof high temperatures.
106
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1been of farmworkers. Similarly, although construction workers comprise only 6% of the national

2

workforce, they account for 36% of heat-related deaths.

3

201. The rate of occupational heat-related deaths in California slightly exceeds the national

4

average. In 2006, dramatic increases in many heat-related illnesses and deaths were reported

5

following a record-breaking heat wave. Over 16,000 excess emergency room visits, over 1,100

6

excess hospitalizations, and at least 140 deaths occurred between July 15 and August 1, 2006.

7

Projections for California estimate about a 10- to 20-fold increase in the number of extremely hot

8days by the mid-21st century, and about a 20- to 30-fold increase by the end of the century.

9202. Californians already experience the worst air quality in the nation. Hotter

10temperatures lead to more smog, which can damage lungs, and increase childhood asthma,

11

respiratory and heart disease, and death. Air quality is expected to deteriorate due to rising12

temperatures, as ground-level ozone and particulate matter concentrations rise. Ozone and13particulate matter are associated with a wide range of harmful health effects in humans, including

14

cardiovascular disease, cancer, and asthma.

15

203. The smoke from climate change-driven wildfires has also compromised and will

16

further compromise California’s air quality. Smoke from these fires has reached everywhere in

17

California, clogging the skies, eclipsing the sun, and suffocating Californians’ air. Wildfire smoke

18

is a complex mixture of toxic gases, fine particulate matter, and other pollutants. Most of the state19

has experienced large increases in wildfire-driven air pollution when comparing air quality data

20

from 2002-2013 with those from 2014-2020. During the 2020 Fire Siege, all of California was21

covered by wildfire smoke for over 45 days—and 36 counties for at least 90 days. Altogether,22

more than half of California’s population experienced approximately one month characterized by

23

unhealthy, very unhealthy, or hazardous levels of wildfire smoke during the 2020 fire season. The

24

five highest average daily air pollution readings ever recorded in California occurred in 2020.

25

204. The decline in air quality from wildfire smoke has had pernicious impacts on the

26

State’s public health. Exposure to wildfire smoke has been linked to respiratory infections,27

cardiac arrests, low birth weight, mental health conditions, and exacerbated asthma and chronic

28

obstructive pulmonary disease. Sensitive groups, such as children, pregnant people, and the107Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1elderly; those with underlying health conditions; and those whose occupations require working

2

outdoors with greater exposure to wildfire smoke, such as agricultural workers, suffer an even3

greater risk of harmful health effects from wildfire smoke. Researchers from Stanford University

4

estimated California wildfire smoke likely led to at least 1,200 and as many as 3,000 excess

5

California deaths between August 1 and September 10, 2020 alone.

6

205. Heavy precipitation, sea level rise, and extreme weather events will lead to more

7

frequent flooding, which causes death and injury in addition to secondary health risks such as

8

damage to sanitation infrastructure, aggravation of chronic diseases, and contamination of9

drinking water, land, and property which jeopardizes human health and the State economy. As

10

one example, the alternating cycle of heavy precipitation and heat attributed to climate change

11

provides an ideal condition for fungal Valley Fever outbreaks. Sea level rise and increased

12flooding are also expected to lead to increased risk of contamination and chemical exposure due

13

to flooding of toxic sites. These risks are particularly acute for California because 68.5% of the

14state’s population lives in the coastal areas. As pest seasons and ranges expand, vector-and tick-15

borne illnesses will increase in California’s population. The State has borne, and will continue to16

bear, costs associated with mitigating and responding to these public health threats.

17

5.

Extreme Storms and Flooding

18

206. Much of California’s winter precipitation arrives in the form of “atmospheric river”

19

storms, which are fed by long streams of water vapor transported from the Pacific Ocean. These20

storms deliver extreme precipitation when their moisture-laden winds encounter California’s

21

coastal mountain ranges.

22207. Atmospheric rivers and the heavy precipitation they bring are the major cause of23

historical floods in California, resulting significant damage to property and public infrastructure24

and substantial economic losses.

25

208. Studies uniformly show that atmospheric rivers are likely to become more frequent

26

and more intense in the future, in part because warmer air allows atmospheric rivers to hold more27

moisture. In a warmer future climate, total precipitation in atmospheric river events is projected to28108Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1increase by about 25% on average throughout the state, and maximum hourly precipitation rates

2

may increase by 30%.

3209. With the increased likelihood of extreme storms comes an increased risk of

4catastrophic flooding. Because warming temperatures will cause a lower proportion of winter5

storms to fall as snow, the predicted 25% increase in total precipitation from atmospheric river

6

events will result in 50% more runoff, posing significant flood risks. Additionally, higher hourly

7

precipitation rates will result in short-duration bursts of intense precipitation, which pose a8significant risk of flash flooding and related hazards, such as mudslides.

9210. One recent study analyzed the likelihood that California would experience a

10“megaflood” in the future—a historically rare flood caused by 30 consecutive days of11

precipitation. Researchers found that the annual likelihood of a megaflood increases rapidly for12each 1° C of global warming, and that warming as of 2022 has already doubled the annual

13

likelihood of a megaflood. By 2060, megafloods—which historically occurred approximately

14

once every two hundred years—may occur three times per century.

15

211. The State’s water infrastructure consists of dams, reservoirs, aqueducts, canals,

16

spillways, levees, and pumping plants designed to store and transport water and reduce flood risk.

17

Much of this infrastructure was designed to operate within historical ranges of precipitation and18

temperatures, not the more frequent and intense storms that the State will face in the warming

19

future. The flood improvement investments needed in the Central Valley alone are expected to20

cost the State between $1.8 and $2.8 billion through 2027. In the winter of 2022 to 2023,

21

California experienced a series of severe atmospheric river storms that broke precipitation records

22

throughout the state, with some areas of the state receiving more than 200% of average

23

precipitation. These storms had devastating effects throughout California. More than 80 state park24

properties were fully or partially closed due to storm impacts. In March 2023, the Pajaro River25

breached a levee on the border of Monterey and Santa Cruz counties, triggering evacuation orders

26

and warnings for more than 8,500 people, and leaving residents of the unincorporated community

27

of Pajaro without safe drinking water for the next month. In the Central Valley, Tulare Lake—

28
109
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1which was drained to support agriculture in the early 1900s and has been largely dry since—2

reappeared, flooding 168 square miles, and grew in size as the Sierra snowpack melted.

3212. Floods can cause emergency conditions such as power, water, and gas outages;

4

disrupt transportation routes and commercial supplies; damage homes, buildings, and roads; and5cause severe environmental problems, including landslides and mudslides, which require6

response and recovery efforts by the State. Household, industrial, agricultural, and other wastes

7

can contaminate floodwaters, creating chemical and biological public health risks to impacted

8communities. Flooding from storms often leads to increased sanitary sewer overflows. Drinking

9water supplies are often inundated with sewage and other contaminants from flood waters

10

resulting in water use restrictions, including Boil Water Notices and Do Not Drink Orders,11limiting or eliminating drinking water for communities. Burn scars from wildfires increase the12risk of debris flows during episodes of increased precipitation. Locations downhill and13

downstream from burned areas are susceptible to flash flooding and debris flows, especially near

14

steep terrain. Rainfall that would normally be absorbed will run off extremely quickly after a15

wildfire. As a result, after a wildfire, much less rainfall is required to produce a flash flood. The

16

force of the rushing water and debris can damage or destroy culverts, bridges, roadways, and17buildings even miles away from the burned area.

18

213. In addition, extreme precipitation events can cause inundation of toxic waste sites,

19

leading containment systems and structures not designed for extreme weather events to fail and20

release contamination.

21

214. The State has borne, and will continue to bear, the costs of constructing, maintaining,22

and upgrading water infrastructure, including flood management infrastructure, and otherwise

23

responding to the damage caused by extreme storms and flooding.

24

6.

Damage to Agriculture

25215. California is a global leader in the agricultural sector and produces more than 400

26

types of commodities. The state produces over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds

27

of its fruits and nuts. California is the largest and most diverse agricultural state in the United

28

States.
110
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1216. While California farmers and ranchers have always been affected by the natural

2

variability of weather from year to year, the increased rate and scale of climate change is beyond

3

the realm of experience for the agricultural community.

4217. Agricultural production in California is highly sensitive to climate change. Changes

5in temperatures and in the amounts, forms, and distribution of precipitation, increased frequency

6and intensity of climate extremes, and water availability are a few examples of climate-related

7

challenges to California’s agriculture sector. Irrigated agriculture produces nearly 90% of the8

harvested crops in California, and a decrease in water availability could reduce crop areas and9yields. Drought can adversely affect agricultural crop production by slowing plant growth and10causing severe crop yield losses. Lower stream flow and groundwater levels as a consequence of11drought can harm plants by increasing the risk of wildfires when vegetation and soil surface dry

12out. Warmer environments can cause greater runoff caused by faster snowmelt. This, in turn,13

causes reservoirs to fill up earlier, increasing the odds of both winter flooding and summer water

14

deficits. Increasing temperatures result in more flooding events, which greatly affect plant

15

survival through a reduction in oxygen availability, root asphyxia, and an increase in disease and16

nitrogen losses.

17218. Changes in California’s climate are negatively influencing California’s highly

18

productive agricultural industry. Impacts on agriculture include low chill hour accumulations,19

crop yield declines, increased pest and disease pressure, increased crop water demands, altered20

phenology of annual and perennial cropping systems, and uncertain future sustainability of some21

highly vulnerable crops.

22219. Permanent crops are among the most profitable commodities in California. They are23

most commonly grown for more than 25 years, which makes them more vulnerable to impacts of

24climate change. Most of the permanent crops in California require several years to reach maturity

25

and profitable production. California has already observed a significant loss of winter chill hours,

26

due to an increase in average winter temperatures. Winter chill hours are defined as the number of

27hours spent below 45° F, necessary for the flowers of fruits and nuts to bloom, and required by28

certain crops to achieve high yields. According to University of California researchers, around the111
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1year 1950, growers in the Central Valley could rely on having between 700 and 1,200 chill hours

2

annually. For chilling requirements of 500 hours (chestnut, pecan, and quince), only about 78% of

3

the Central Valley will be suitable for production by the end of the 21st century. For chilling4

requirements of more than 700 hours (apricot, kiwifruit, peach, nectarine, plum, and walnut), only

5

23–46% of the valley remains suitable, and only 10% will remain suitable by 2080–2095. Only

6

4% of the area of the Central Valley was suitable in the year 2000 for species such as apples,7

cherries, and pears, which have annual chilling requirements of more than 1,000 hours; however,8

virtually no areas in California will remain suitable by 2041–2060 under any emissions scenario

9

for these types of fruit crops.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Figure 15: California Central Valley Winter Chill Hours in 1950, 2000,
2041–2060, and 2080–2099
220. Increases in invasive pests, changes to plant and pest interactions, and increases inplant and animal diseases in agriculture are some additional potential impacts from climatechange. University of California researchers have indicated that due to climate change, by 2050,
112
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1yields are projected to decline by 40% for avocados and 20% for almonds, table grapes, oranges,

2

and walnuts. In 2021, drought resulted in the fallowing of nearly 400,000 acres of fields. Direct3

crop revenue losses were approximately $962 million, and total economic impacts were more

4

than $1.7 billion, with over 14,000 full- and part-time job losses. During the 2011–2017 drought,

5

California’s agricultural industry suffered at least $5 billion in losses. Because California feeds

6

not only its own residents, but the entire U.S. and other countries as well, production declines

7

could lead to food shortages and higher prices.

8

7.

Sea Level Rise, Coastal Flooding and Coastal Erosion

9221. Climate change causes sea level rise in two primary ways: (1) by causing the melting

10of ice sheets and glaciers, and (2) by warming seawater, which consequently expands. Sea level11

rise is already accelerating along the California coast and will continue to rise substantially over12

the twenty-first century, threatening coastal communities, natural resources, cultural sites, and13

infrastructure.

14222. California has approximately 1,100 miles of coastline. California’s 19 coastal

15

counties are home to 68% of its people, 80% of its wages, and 80% of its GDP. 148 The sea level

16

along California’s coasts has risen nearly eight inches in the past century and is projected to rise17

by 3.5 feet, and as much as 6.6 feet under extreme scenarios, by the end of the century. As the18

Earth gradually warms, sea level rise will continue to threaten coastal communities and19

infrastructure through more frequent flooding (followed by permanent inundation of low-lying

20

areas), and increased erosion of cliffs, bluffs, dunes, and beaches. Across California, accelerating

21

sea level rise will cause an exponential increase in the frequency of coastal flooding events,

22

doubling with approximately every two to four inches of sea level rise. Sea level rise could put

23

600,000 people at risk of flooding by the year 2100, and threaten $150 billion in property and24

infrastructure, including roadways, buildings, hazardous waste sites, power plants, and parks and25

tourist destinations. Coastal erosion could have a significant impact on California’s ocean-26

dependent economy, which is the nation’s largest, and estimated to exceed $45 billion per year.

27
28

148

California’s gross domestic product, or GDP, is the value of all goods and services
produced in California.
113
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

Critical infrastructure located on the shore, such as wastewater treatment plants, power stations,2and transportation corridors, will also be affected. Sea level rise also pushes shallow groundwater3

closer to the surface, a process that may release contaminants buried in the soil.

4223. Sea levels along the California coast have generally risen over the past century,

5

except along the far north coast where uplift of the land surface has occurred due to the6

movement of the Earth’s plates, as illustrated in the following chart.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Figure 16: Annual Mean Sea Level Trends

17
18

224. Coastal wave events and high tides, in combination with current and rising sea levels,

19

will increase flood impacts on land, which will exacerbate the impact on coastal assets. Rising sea

20levels may also contaminate coastal groundwater aquifers and raise groundwater tables, causing

21

increased flooding leading to impacts that will, among other things, further damage buried and22

low-lying infrastructure.

23

225. Coastal recreation and tourism are vulnerable to repeated and increasing disruptions

24

from sea level rise, flooding, and erosion. Accelerated erosion and flooding diminish the number

25

and quality of beaches. Beach closures have already occurred in California because of erosion and26high storm surges, and such closures impact tourism and result in natural resource damage. Areas

27

including some state parks and beaches will suffer further erosion due to sea level rise.

28
114
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1226. Rising water levels and increased storm activity will increase coastal erosion,2

impacting beaches and cliffs throughout the state. For example, a projected 31–67% of Southern3

California beaches are projected to completely erode by the end of the century if adaptation

4

actions are not implemented.

5227. Billions of dollars’ worth of real estate development, primarily residential properties,

6

line the California seashore. All of California’s low-lying communities, as well as developments

7

on cliffs, bluffs, dunes, or the beach itself, and their associated infrastructure, are vulnerable to8

the impacts of a rising sea. King tides, and/or storm events—often accompanied by the9simultaneous arrival of large waves—have already impacted many of these areas repeatedly.

10228. Saltwater intrusion from sea level rise is also expected to impair water quality in

11coastal groundwater aquifers, as well as surface water supplies, as the salt front moves upstream.

12

Water quality will also be degraded as rising sea levels submerge sewer discharge points,

13

allowing contaminants to move into waterways and the surrounding environment. Industrial sites

14

located in coastal areas will be at a greater risk of pollutant discharge into the State’s waters.

15229. Rising seas will inundate coastal infrastructure, including wastewater treatment plants

16

and toxic cleanup sites where contaminants may be mobilized and risk spreading contamination17

to nearby vulnerable communities. Hundreds of such sites in the state are potentially vulnerable to18

impacts from sea level rise.

19230. Sea level rise in California not only threatens coastal communities, but also threatens

20

the health of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the heart of the California water supply system,21

the source of water for 25 million Californians and millions of acres of prime farmland, and22

essential habitat for imperiled native wildlife. Sea level rise in California could lead to flooding of

23

low-lying areas, loss of coastal wetlands, saltwater contamination of drinking water, impacts on

24

roads and bridges, and increased stress on levees. It may also require increased flows to prevent

25

saltwater intrusion into the Bay-Delta system.

26

8.

Ecosystem, Habitat, and Biodiversity Disruption

27

231. California is one of the most biologically diverse regions of the world, with the28highest number of unique plant and animal species of all 50 states, and the greatest number of115
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

endangered species. Moreover, due to its diverse topographic, geologic, and climate conditions,2

California is one of 25 global biodiversity hotspots, where exceptional concentrations of endemic

3

species are experiencing significant habitat loss. California’s diverse climates are closely linked

4

to the State’s biodiversity; climate change is therefore expected to directly and indirectly impact

5

California’s terrestrial and marine habitats and species—and indeed already is impacting them.

6232. Healthy ecosystems and biodiversity provide a plethora of direct and indirect benefits

7

to Californians and the State’s economy, such as clean air, clean water, crop pollination, and8recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing. These “ecosystem

9

services” are tied to biodiversity and will therefore be negatively impacted by climate change.

10233. Climate change can affect biodiversity in many ways. For example, species can be11

directly impacted, like salmon being exposed to warming stream temperatures that threaten their

12

survival. Species can also be affected indirectly, through climate-induced changes in food, water,13

and habitat availability. Since ecosystems are highly interconnected, impacts to individual species

14

often have consequences for other species within the system.

15234. As a result of climate change, California has seen, and will continue to see, the16following impacts on its ecosystems: shifts in species abundance and distributions; shifts in the17timing of important life-cycle events such as pollination, flowering, breeding, and migration; the18

spread of invasive species and pests, which pose a threat to the survival of native species and19

usually disrupt ecosystem processes; and habitat loss and species extinctions. Throughout

20

California, these types of changes have been observed across terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine, and21

marine ecosystems.

22
23
24

235. More specifically, some of the effects of climate change on habitat and biodiversity in
California will include the following:a.

Physiological stress on species due to changes in temperature and25

precipitation. Warming temperatures, declining snowpack, and earlier spring snowmelt runoff

26

create stresses on vegetation. This stress will cause shifts in geographic ranges, and will facilitate27

the spread of invasive species, pests (such as the bark beetle), pathogens, and diseases that affect28

ecosystems and species, and generally cause population declines. For example, tree deaths have
116
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1increased dramatically in California since the 2012-2016 drought; approximately 129 million

2trees died in California between 2012 and 2017. Higher temperatures and decreased water3

availability made the trees more vulnerable to insects and pathogen attacks. Some of the most4heavily impacted vegetation regions are predicted to be the Sierra Nevada foothills; the south

5

coast, including Los Angeles and San Diego; the deserts; and potentially the coast ranges north of6

the San Francisco Bay Area. Similarly, in three study regions of the Sierra Nevada, the habitat

7

ranges of almost 75% of the small mammalian species and over 80% of the bird species surveyed

8

were observed to have shifted compared to a century ago.

9b.

Impacts to timing of species’ lifecycle phases due to shifting timing of climatic

10

events. Changes in temperature, precipitation, food sources, competition for prey, and other11

physical or biological elements may cause detrimental alterations in the timing of key life cycle

12

events for plants and animals, harming population health and further shifting the ranges where

13

these plants and animals can survive. For example, some butterfly species emerge at the same

14

time that their host plants flower. Warming temperatures are linked with earlier flowering times,

15

and if butterflies and host plants are not able to adapt to a shifting climate at the same rate,

16

butterflies may have insufficient food, and the host plants may lack pollinators. As another17

example, shifts in suitable climatic conditions for seedling establishment for two common

18

California oak species have caused significant decreases in seedling “establishment windows,”

19

which is likely to bring about future population declines.

20c.

Aquatic ecosystem and marine habitat impacts. Shifts anticipated and already21

observed in precipitation and water flow patterns have negatively impacted water quality (e.g.,22

due to sedimentation or algal blooms) and habitat suitability. As one example, harmful algal

23

blooms are becoming more frequent and more intense across California as waters warm. These

24

blooms, which result from the overgrowth of algae, caused 18 human illnesses and 444 animal

25

illnesses in California in 2021 alone. Further, shifts in quantities of sediment in waterways have26

significant consequences, including declining water quality due to increases in contaminants such27

as pesticides, herbicides, nutrients, and mercury. Under current GHG emissions trajectories, 82%

28

of native California freshwater fishes have an increased probability of becoming extinct by 2100;
117
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1these include many species that are already at risk and listed as species of special concern or2

species that are endangered, including salmon and steelhead trout. In contrast, non-native species

3

are thriving in the increasingly warm waters of California’s rivers and reservoirs, taking the place4of many native fishes. Further, ocean acidification and warming have a broad variety of effects,

5

negatively impacting everything from copepods at the base of the food chain to Chinook salmon

6

and sea lion pup births.

7

236. The State has incurred damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’

8

conduct. The State has planned and is planning, at significant expense, adaptation and mitigation

9

strategies to address climate change-related impacts in order to preemptively mitigate and/or

10

prevent injuries to itself and its residents.

11237. The scale of transformation needed over this decade to avoid the worst impacts of

12climate change is extraordinary. The State has made investments of a historic scale to advance the13

all-of-government approaches necessary to avert the worst impacts of climate change. For

14

example, California’s $52.2 billion Climate Change Commitment for 2021 through 2027 includes

15$10 billion for zero-emission vehicles, $2.1 billion for clean energy investments, $13.8 billion for

16

programs that reduce emissions from the transportation sector, such as improving public

17transportation while also funding walking, biking, and adaptation projects, and $13.2 billion for18

wildfire risk reduction, drought mitigation, extreme heat resilience, and nature-based solutions.

19

238. The State has spent tens of billions of dollars to adapt to climate change and address

20

the damages climate change has caused so far, and the State will need to spend multiples of that21

figure in the years to come.

22239. Defendants’ tortious and deceptive conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about

23

these and other climate-related injuries suffered by the State, including harms to its infrastructure,24

environment, socioeconomic condition, and public health, that it has endured, and foreseeably

25

will endure, due to the climate crisis. Moreover, the brunt of these injuries and harms will fall on

26

frontline communities, as climate change exacerbates existing public health and environmental

27

disparities.

28
118
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1240. Defendants’ tortious and deceptive conduct as described herein is therefore an actual,2

direct, and proximate substantial-factor cause of the State’s climate crisis-related injuries and3brought about or helped to bring about those injuries. Such injuries include, but are not limited to,4harms due to delayed responses to climate change caused by Defendants’ behavior.

5V.

CAUSES OF ACTION

6FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

7

PUBLIC NUISANCE

8(Civil Code Sections 3479, 3480, and 3494)

9(Against All Defendants)

10241. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in each of the

11

preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

12242. Under Civil Code section 3479, a “nuisance” is “anything which is injurious to13

health,” including, but not limited to, “an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere

14with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property,” or anything which “unlawfully obstructs the15

free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal,

16

or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway.”17

243. Under Civil Code section 3480, a “public nuisance” is “one which affects at the same

18

time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the19extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.”

20

244. Pursuant to Civil Code section 3494, a “public nuisance may be abated by any public

21

body or officer authorized thereto by law.” As courts have recognized, the Attorney General is22such a public officer authorized to bring an action in the name of the People of the State of23

California to abate a public nuisance.

24245. Defendants, individually and in concert with each other, by their affirmative acts and25omissions, have created, contributed to, and assisted in creating harmful climate-related

26

conditions throughout California, including extreme heat, drought, increased wildfire risk, air

27pollution, flooding, damage to agriculture, sea level rise, coastal erosion, habitat destruction, and28

loss of ecosystems, with compounding effects in frontline communities. These climate-related
119
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

harms are injurious to health, indecent and offensive to the senses, and obstruct the free use of2

property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property, and therefore

3

constitute a nuisance.

4

246. Defendants, and each of them, created, caused, contributed to, and assisted in the5creation of these and other climate-related harms in California by, among other things,

6

affirmatively promoting the sale and use of fossil fuel products in California which Defendants

7

knew would cause or exacerbate climate change and its impacts, including without limitation

8

extreme heat, drought, increased wildfire risk, public heath injuries, extreme weather, and sea

9level rise.

10247. The climate-related harms that Defendants created, caused, contributed to, and11

assisted in the creation of, have substantially and unreasonably interfered with the exercise of

12

rights common to the public, including the public health, the public safety, the public peace, the13public comfort, and the public convenience. These interferences with public rights include,

14

among other things, affirmatively promoting the sale and use of fossil fuel products in California,

15

which Defendants knew would cause or exacerbate climate change and its impacts, including

16

without limitation extreme heat, drought, increased wildfire risk, public health injuries, extreme

17

weather, and sea level rise.

18248. The climate-related harms that Defendants created, caused, contributed to, and19

assisted in the creation of, have substantially and unreasonably interfered with the exercise of20

rights common to the public, including the public health, the public safety, the public peace, the21

public comfort, and the public convenience. These interferences with public rights include,

22

among other things:

23
24
25
26

a.

Extreme heat events, which increase the risk of injury or death fromdehydration, heat stroke, heart attack, and respiratory problems;b.

Frequent and severe droughts, which can result in drinking water shortages andland subsidence due to groundwater depletion;

27
28
120
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1c.

Catastrophic wildfires, which destroy California’s natural resources and2

residents’ homes, while also emitting dangerous pollutants into the air and severely

3compromising air quality;

4d.

Increased smog from hotter temperatures, which damages lungs and increases

5

rates of childhood asthma, respiratory and heart disease, and death, and which reduces visibility

6and obstructs scenic views;

7

e.

8

infrastructure, obstructing the free passage and use of property;

9
10
11

Extreme winter storms, which cause flooding that can damage publicf.

Damage to agriculture, including reduced crop yields that could lead to foodg.

Sea level rise, coastal inundation, and groundwater changes, which obstruct the

shortages;

12

free passage and use of roads and property, impair water quality in groundwater aquifers, damage

13

critical public infrastructure such as power plants and airports, and lead to unprecedented and14

dangerous storm surges that can cause injury or even deaths; and15h.

Significant disruptions to California’s ecosystems and biodiversity, including

16

the spread of invasive species and pests and the risk of extinction for California’s native species.

17249. The harms caused by Defendants’ nuisance-creating conduct are extremely grave, and18

far outweigh the social utility of that conduct.

19250. The climate-related harms that Defendants created, caused, contributed to, and20

assisted in the creation of are present throughout California, and therefore affect a considerable

21

number of persons in California.

22251. The climate-related harms that Defendants created, caused, contributed to, and23

assisted in the creation of continue to harm to the State and its people into the present day, and24

will continue to harm the State and its people many years into the future.

25

252. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, the State will be

26

required to expend significant public resources to mitigate the impacts of climate-related harms

27

throughout California.

28
121Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1253. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Californians have2

sustained and will sustain injuries to public health, safety, and welfare; the loss of use and3enjoyment of natural resources; and obstruction to the free use of property, harms for which

4

Defendants are jointly and severally liable.

56254. Defendants’ acts and omissions have caused or threaten to cause injuries to people,
properties, and natural resources in California that are indivisible.

7

255. The State seeks abatement of the public nuisance caused by Defendants.

8256. The State requests that this Court order Defendants, and each of them jointly and9severally, to abate the nuisance, including by making payments into an abatement fund to address

10

the public nuisance.

11

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

12ACTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR POLLUTION, IMPAIRMENT, AND

13

DESTRUCTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES

14(Government Code Section 12607)

15(Against All Defendants)

16257. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in each of the

17
18

preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
258. Government Code section 12607 authorizes the Attorney General to “maintain an

19

action for equitable relief in the name of the People of the State of California against any person

20

for the protection of the natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment, or destruction.”

21259. “Natural resource” is defined to include “land, water, air, minerals, vegetation,

22

wildlife, silence, historic or aesthetic sites, or any other natural resource which, irrespective of23

ownership contributes, or in the future may contribute, to the health, safety, welfare, or enjoyment

24

of a substantial number of persons, or to the substantial balance of an ecological community.”25(Gov. Code, § 12605.)2627260. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, climate-related conditions are polluting,impairing, and destroying the State’s natural resources.

28
122
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1261. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, climate-related conditions are polluting,2

impairing, and destroying “other natural resources” as described in the statute which,3“irrespective of ownership contribute, or in the future may contribute, to the health, safety,

4

welfare, or enjoyment of a substantial number of persons, or to the substantial balance of an

5

ecological community.” (Gov. Code, § 12605.)6
7
8262. This pollution, impairment, and destruction of natural resources, including water,
wildlife, and other natural resources, is continuing in nature.
263. Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in and continue to engage in, conduct

9that caused or contributed to the pollution, impairment, and destruction of natural resources,10

including water resources, wildlife, and other natural resources. The acts and practices engaged in

11

by Defendants that polluted, impaired, and destroyed natural resources include the following:

12a.

affirmatively and knowingly promoting the sale and use of fossil fuel products

13

in California which Defendants knew would cause or exacerbate climate change and its impacts,

14

including extreme heat, drought, extreme weather, and sea level rise;

15b.

affirmatively and knowingly concealing the hazards that Defendants knew

16

would result from the use of their fossil fuel products by misrepresenting and casting doubt on the17

integrity of scientific information related to climate change;

18
19
20

c.

affirmatively promoting fossil fuel products for uses that Defendants knew

would be dangerous and cause harm to consumers, the public, and the State;d.

disseminating and funding the dissemination of information intending to21

mislead customers, consumers, lawmakers, and the public regarding the known and foreseeable

22

risks of climate change and its consequences that follow from the normal, intended use of fossil

23

fuel products;

24

e.

delaying the development of viable clean energy alternatives by preventing

25

customers, the media, policymakers, and the public from having access to full and accurate

26

information material to their energy purchasing decisions, thereby causing the emission of vast27

quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere;28
123
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1
2

f.

failing to warn the public about the hazards associated with the use of fossil

fuel products; and3g.

deceptively marketing their products as environmentally beneficial or benign

4

when in reality those products contribute to climate change and are harmful to the health of the5planet and its people.

6

264. Defendants’ acts and omissions have caused pollution, impairment, and destruction of

7

California’s natural resources, including water, wildlife, and other natural resources that are

8

indivisible.

9265. Pursuant to Government Code section 12607, the State requests that this Court grant10

temporary and permanent equitable relief and impose such conditions upon Defendants as are

11

required to protect the natural resources of California from pollution, impairment, or destruction.

12266. Pursuant to Government Code section 12610, the State requests that this Court grant13

any and all temporary and permanent equitable relief needed to prevent further pollution,

14

impairment and destruction of the natural resources of California, including the imposition of

15

such conditions upon the Defendants as are required to protect the natural resources of California

16

from pollution, impairment, or destruction.

17

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

18

UNTRUE OR MISLEADING ADVERTISING

19(Business and Professions Code Section 17500)

20(Against All Defendants)

21267. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in each of the22

preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

23268. Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in and continue to engage in acts or

24practices that constitute violations of the False Advertising Law, Business and Professions Code25

section 17500 et seq.

26269. Defendants, with the intent to induce members of the public to purchase and utilize

27

fossil fuel products, made or caused to be made and/or disseminated misleading statements

28

concerning the fossil fuels, which Defendants knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should
124
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1have known, were untrue or misleading at the time they were made. Such misrepresentations

2

include, but are not limited to:3a.

Deceptively marketing fossil fuel products claimed to be “low carbon,”4“emissions-reducing,” “clean” and/or “green,” or otherwise environmentally beneficial or benign,5

when in reality those products contribute to climate change and are harmful to the health of the6planet and its people;

7b.

Deceptively promoting natural gas as a climate-friendly or environmentally8

friendly fuel, and/or as “clean” or “cleaner” than other fossil fuels, when in reality natural gas

9contributes to climate change and is harmful to the health of the planet and its people;

10c.

Deceptively marketing their companies and their products as contributing to11solutions to climate change when in reality their investments in clean energy and alternative fuels

12

pale in comparison to their investments in expanding fossil fuel production, and those alternative

13

fuels, such as natural gas, contribute to climate change; and14d.

Misleadingly promoting their companies as being in alignment with

15

international goals to reduce carbon emissions and reach net-zero emissions, when in reality they16

are investing in maintaining and/or expanding their fossil fuel businesses.

17

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION18MISLEADING ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING

19(Business and Professions Code Section 17580.5)

20(Against All Defendants)

21

270. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in each of the22

preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

23271. Defendants, and each of them, have made environmental marketing claims that are24

untruthful, deceptive, and/or misleading, whether explicitly or implicitly, in violation of Business25

and Professions Code section 17580.5.

26
27

272. Such misleading environmental marketing claims include, but are not limited to, suchdeceptive representations as:28
125Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1a.

Deceptively marketing fossil fuel products claimed to be “low carbon,”2“emissions-reducing,” “clean” and/or “green,” or otherwise environmentally beneficial or benign,3

when in reality those products contribute to climate change and are harmful to the health of the4plant and its people;

5b.

Deceptively promoting natural gas as a climate-friendly or environmentally

6

friendly fuel, and/or as “clean” or “cleaner” than other fossil fuels, when in reality natural gas

7contributes to climate change and is harmful to the health of the planet and its people;

8c.

Deceptively marketing their companies and their products as contributing to9solutions to climate change when in reality their investments in clean energy and alternative fuels

10

pale in comparison to their investments in expanding fossil fuel production, and those alternative

11

fuels, such as natural gas, contribute to climate change; and12d.

Misleadingly promoting their companies as being in alignment with

13

international goals to reduce carbon emissions and reach net-zero emissions, when in reality they14

are investing in maintaining and/or expanding their fossil fuel businesses.

15

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

16

UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR, OR FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICES

17(Business and Professions Code Section 17200)

18(Against All Defendants)

19273. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in each of the20

preceding and following paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

21274. Defendants have engaged in and continue to engage in unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent

22business acts or practices and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising that constitutes

23

unfair competition as defined in the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code24

section 17200 et seq.

25
26
27
28

275. Defendants committed unlawful acts in violation of the Unfair Competition Law by,among other things:a.

Affirmatively promoting the use of fossil fuels while knowing that fossil fuels

would lead to devastating consequences on the climate, and affirmatively misleading the public
126
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1and casting doubt on climate science, thereby creating or assisting in the creation of a public

2

nuisance, as alleged in the First Cause of Action;

3b.

Engaging in conduct that caused or contributed to the pollution, impairment,

4and destruction of natural resources in violation of Government Code section 12607, as alleged in5

the Second Cause of Action;

6

c.

7
8
9
10

Disseminating untrue and misleading statements to the public in violation ofBusiness and Professions Code section 17500, as alleged in the Third Cause of Action;d.

Making misleading environmental marketing claims in violation of Businessand Professions Code section 17580.5, as alleged in the Fourth Cause of Action; ande.

Failing to warn consumers of the known risks of fossil fuel use in violation of

11

common law, as alleged in the Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action, which follow and which

12

Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein.

13

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

14STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY

15(Failure to Warn)

16(Against All Fossil Fuel Defendants)

17276. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in each of the18

preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

19277. At all relevant times the Fossil Fuel Defendants, and each of them, extracted, refined,

20

formulated, designed, packaged, manufactured, merchandised, advertised, promoted, and/or sold21

fossil fuel products, which were intended by the Fossil Fuel Defendants to be combusted for22energy, refined into petrochemicals, and refined and/or incorporated into petrochemical products

23

including fuels and plastics. The Fossil Fuel Defendants placed these fossil fuel products into the24

stream of commerce.

25278. The Fossil Fuel Defendants, and each of them, heavily marketed, promoted, and26

advertised fossil fuel products and their derivatives, which were sold or used by their respective

27

affiliates and subsidiaries. The Fossil Fuel Defendants received direct financial benefit from their28

affiliates’ and subsidiaries’ sales of fossil fuel products. The Fossil Fuel Defendants’ roles as
127
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

promoters and marketers were integral to their respective businesses and a necessary factor in2

bringing fossil fuel products and their derivatives to the consumer market, such that the Fossil

3

Fuel Defendants had control over, and a substantial ability to influence, the manufacturing and4

distribution processes of their affiliates and subsidiaries.

5279. Throughout the times at issue, the Fossil Fuel Defendants individually and6collectively knew or should have known that fossil fuel products, whether used as intended or7

used in a foreseeable manner, release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, inevitably causing

8

among other things, global warming, heat waves, more frequent and extreme droughts,

9

precipitation events, sea level rise, and the associated consequences of those physical and

10

environmental changes.

11280. Throughout the times at issue and continuing today, fossil fuel products presented,

12

and still present, a substantial danger to the State and its people through the climate harms

13

described herein, whether used as intended or used in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

14281. Throughout the times at issue, the ordinary consumer would not recognize that the15

use of fossil fuel products causes global and localized changes in climate, and consequent injuries

16

to California, its communities, and its resources, as described herein.

17282. Throughout the times at issue, the Fossil Fuel Defendants individually and in concert

18

widely disseminated false, and misleading marketing materials; cast doubt upon the consensus on

19

climate change within the scientific community at the time; advanced pseudo-scientific theories

20of their own; and developed public relations campaigns and materials that prevented reasonable21

consumers from recognizing the risk that fossil fuel products would cause grave climate harms,

22

including those described herein.

23283. Notwithstanding the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ superior knowledge of the risks posed24by their fossil fuel products, the Fossil Fuel Defendants, and each of them, failed to adequately

25

warn customers, consumers, elected officials, and regulators of the known and foreseeable risks

26

of climate change and the consequences that inevitably follow from the normal, intended use of27

the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products.

28
128
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1284. Any warnings that the Fossil Fuel Defendants might have disseminated were rendered2ineffective and inadequate by their false and misleading public statements about the dangers of3

their fossil fuel products, and their widespread and longstanding efforts to conceal and4

misrepresent the dangers inherent in the use of their fossil fuel products.

5285. Had the Fossil Fuel Defendants provided adequate warnings, their fossil fuel products

6would not have had widespread acceptance in the marketplace, and alternatives to fossil fuel7

products would have been developed sooner. In addition, if the Fossil Fuel Defendants had

8adequately warned of the adverse impacts to public health and the environment caused by the9ordinary and foreseeable use of their fossil fuel products, the State and its residents would have10

taken measures to avoid or lessen those impacts in California.

1112286. The Fossil Fuel Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible
causes of the State’s injuries as alleged herein.

13287. The Fossil Fuel Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and14

fraudulent, in that their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights

15of others. Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down

16

upon and despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages,

17

in an amount subject to proof.

18288. As a direct and proximate result of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ failure to warn, their

19

fossil fuel products caused the State to sustain the injuries and damages set forth in this20

Complaint, and will cause future injuries and damages to State as set forth in this Complaint,

21

including, without limitation, damage to State property, State infrastructure, and natural

22

resources. The State seeks compensatory damages for these injuries in an amount subject to23

proof.

24
25
26
27
28
129
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2NEGLIGENT PRODUCTS LIABILITY

3(Failure to Warn)

4(Against All Fossil Fuel Defendants)

5289. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in each of the

6

preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

7290. At all relevant times the Fossil Fuel Defendants, and each of them, extracted, refined,

8

formulated, designed, packaged, manufactured, merchandised, advertised, promoted, and/or sold9

fossil fuel products, which were intended by the Fossil Fuel Defendants to be combusted for10energy, refined into petrochemicals, and refined and/or incorporated into petrochemical products

11

including fuels and plastics. The Fossil Fuel Defendants placed these fossil fuel products into the12

stream of commerce.

13291. The Fossil Fuel Defendants, and each of them, heavily marketed, promoted, and14

advertised fossil fuel products and their derivatives, which were sold or used by their respective

15

affiliates and subsidiaries. The Fossil Fuel Defendants received direct financial benefit from their16

affiliates’ and subsidiaries’ sales of fossil fuel products. The Fossil Fuel Defendants’ roles as

17

promoters and marketers were integral to their respective businesses and a necessary factor in18

bringing fossil fuel products and their derivatives to the consumer market, such that the Fossil

19

Fuel Defendants had control over, and a substantial ability to influence, the manufacturing and20

distribution processes of their affiliates and subsidiaries.

21

292. Throughout the times at issue, the Fossil Fuel Defendants individually and22collectively knew or should have known that fossil fuel products, whether used as intended or in a23

foreseeable manner, release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, inevitably causing, among

24

other things, global warming, more frequent and extreme heat waves, more frequent and extreme

25

droughts, injuries to public health, more frequent and extreme precipitation events, sea level rise,26

and the associated consequences of those physical and environmental changes.

27
28
130
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1293. Throughout the times at issue and continuing today, fossil fuel products presented and2still present a substantial danger to the State and its people through the climate effects described3

herein, whether used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

4294. Throughout the times at issue, the ordinary consumer would not recognize that the5

use of fossil fuel products causes global and localized changes in climate, and consequent injuries

6

to California, its communities, and its resources, as described herein.

7295. Throughout the times at issue, the Fossil Fuel Defendants individually and in concert

8widely disseminated false and misleading marketing materials; cast doubt in the public’s mind

9

about the consensus on climate change within the scientific community at the time; advanced

10

pseudo-scientific theories of their own; and developed public relations campaigns and materials

11

that prevented reasonable consumers from recognizing the risk that fossil fuel products would

12

cause grave climate changes, including those described herein.

13296. Notwithstanding the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ superior knowledge of the risks posed

14by their fossil fuel products, the Fossil Fuel Defendants, and each of them, failed to adequately

15

warn customers, consumers, elected officials, and regulators, including in California, of the16

known and foreseeable risks of climate change and the consequences that inevitably follow from17

the normal, intended use of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products.

18297. Given the grave dangers caused by normal or foreseeable use of fossil fuel products

19

as described herein, a reasonable extractor, refiner, formulator, designer, manufacturer,

20

merchandiser, advertiser, promoter, or seller responsible for introducing fossil fuel products into

21

the stream of commerce, would have warned of those known and inevitable climate effects.

22298. Any warnings that the Fossil Fuel Defendants might have disseminated were rendered23

ineffective and inadequate by their false and misleading public statements about the dangers of

24

their fossil fuel products, and their widespread and longstanding efforts to conceal and25

misrepresent the dangers inherent in the use of their fossil fuel products.

26

299. Had the Fossil Fuel Defendants provided adequate warnings, their fossil fuel products

27

would not have had widespread acceptance in the marketplace, and alternatives to fossil fuel28

products would have been developed sooner. In addition, if the Fossil Fuel Defendants had
131
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1adequately warned of the adverse impacts to public health and the environment caused by the2ordinary and foreseeable use of their fossil fuel products, the State and its residents would have3

taken measures to avoid or lessen those impacts in California.

45300. The Fossil Fuel Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible
causes of the State’s injuries as alleged herein.

6301. The Fossil Fuel Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and7

fraudulent, in that their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights

8of others. Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down

9

upon and despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages

10in an amount subject to proof.

11302. As a direct and proximate result of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ failure to warn, their

12

fossil fuel products caused the State to sustain the injuries and damages set forth in this13

Complaint, and will cause future injuries and damages to State as set forth in this Complaint,

14

including, without limitation, damage to State property, State infrastructure, and natural

15

resources. The State seeks compensatory damages for these injuries in an amount subject to16

proof.

17

VI.

18
19
20

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the State respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of theState and against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:1.

Compelling Defendants to abate the ongoing public nuisance their conduct has

21

created in California, including by establishing and contributing to an abatement fund to pay the22

costs of such abatement;

23

2.

Granting any and all temporary and permanent equitable relief and imposing such24

conditions upon the Defendants as are required to protect and/or prevent further pollution,

25

impairment and destruction of the natural resources of California, including the imposition of

26such conditions upon the Defendants as are required to protect the natural resources of California

27

from pollution, impairment, or destruction, pursuant to Government Code sections 12607 and28

12610;
132
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

3.

Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17535, entering all orders

2

necessary to prevent Defendants, along with Defendants’ successors, agents, representatives,

3

employees, and all persons who act in concert with Defendants, from making any false or4

misleading statements in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500 or 17580.5;

54.

Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17203, entering all orders

6

necessary to prevent Defendants, along with Defendants’ successors, agents, representatives,

7

employees, and all persons who act in concert with Defendants, from engaging in any act or

8practice that constitutes unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code section

917200;

10

5.

Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17535, entering all orders or

11

judgments as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or other property

12

that Defendants may have acquired by violations of Business and Professions Code section 17500

13

or 17580.5;

14

6.

Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17203, entering all orders or

15

judgments as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or other property

16

that Defendants may have acquired by violations of Business and Professions Code section

1717200;

18

7.

Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17536, assessing a civil penalty of19

two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) against Defendants for each violation of Business and

20

Professions Code section 17500, as proved at trial;

21

8.

Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17536, assessing a civil penalty of22

two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) against Defendants for each violation of Business and23

Professions Code section 17580.5, as proved at trial;

24

9.

Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17206, assessing a civil penalty of25

two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) against Defendants for each violation of Business and26

Professions Code section 17200, as proved at trial;

27

10.

Awarding compensatory damages in an amount according to proof;

28

11.

Awarding punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof;
133
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1

12.

Awarding to the Attorney General all costs of investigating and prosecuting the2

public nuisance cause of action pursuant to Civil Code section 3494 and Government Code3

section 12607 cause of action, including expert fees, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs in an

4amount according to proof pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.8;

5

13.

Ordering that the State recover its costs of suit, including costs of investigation;

6

14.

Ordering that the State receive all other relief to which it is legally entitled; and

7

15.

Awarding such other relief that the Court deems just, proper, and equitable.

8

16.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Counties of San Mateo, Marin, and Santa Cruz,

9

the Cities of Richmond, Imperial Beach, Santa Cruz, Oakland, and the City and County of San

10

Francisco (collectively, Local Entities) have filed pending actions against various fossil fuel11

industry defendants for creating, contributing to, and/or assisting in the creation of climate

12

change-related harms within their respective jurisdictions (collectively, Pending Local

13

Actions). 149 The geographic areas covered by any claim or theory of recovery asserted by any

14

Local Entity in the Pending Local Actions are excluded from, and not subsumed by, this action,

15

except as to state-owned property and assets, and except as to harms or violations for which the

16State has exclusive authority to recover damages or obtain injunctive relief. Nothing herein shall17

be construed as abrogating the State’s jurisdiction, duties, or obligations as a trustee of state

18

resources, or permitting and regulatory authority under existing law over lands located within or19

outside the Local Entities’ geographic limits.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

149

The Pending Local Actions are as follows: People of the State of California & Countyof San Mateo v. Chevron et al. (San Mateo Super. Ct., No. 17-CIV-03222); People of the State ofCalifornia & County of Marin v. Chevron et al. (Marin Super. Ct., No. CIV1702586); People of
the State of California & City of Imperial Beach v. Chevron et al. (Contra Costa Super. Ct., No.
MSC17-01227); People of the State of California & City of Santa Cruz v. Chevron et al. (Santa
Cruz Super. Ct., No. 17CV03243); People of the State of California & County of Santa Cruz v.
Chevron et al. (Santa Cruz Super. Ct., No. 17CV03242); People of the State of California & Cityof Richmond v. Chevron et al. (Contra Costa Super. Ct., No. MSC18-00055); People of the Stateof California by and through the City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco & City
and County of San Francisco v. BP et al. (S.F. Super. Ct., No. CGC-17-561370); and People of
the State of California by and through the City Attorney for the City of Oakland & City of
Oakland v. BP et al. (Alameda Super. Ct., No. RG17875889).
134
Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1
2
3

VII. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff respectfully requests that all issues presented by the above Complaint be tried by ajury, with the exception of those issues that, by law, must be tried before the Court.

4
5

Dated: September 15, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

6

ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California
EDWARD H. OCHOA
Senior Assistant Attorney General
LAURA J. ZUCKERMAN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

7
8
9
10
11

_/s/ Heather M. Lewis______________
HEATHER M. LEWISERIN GANAHLMARI MAYEDABRIAN CALAVANKATE HAMMOND
Deputy Attorneys General
Attorneys for Plaintiff
People of the State of California ex rel.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
135

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages