The Brief

Big Oil faces mounting lawsuits as extreme weather worsens, with California leading efforts to make fossil fuel giants pay billions of dollars for the climate damage they have long denied.

Across the country, states, cities, tribes and environmental groups have filed dozens of lawsuits against oil companies alleging that they misled the public about the dangers of their products. These cases share a core argument: Oil companies knew fossil fuels were driving climate change and lied about it.

California and other plaintiffs are recycling a legal strategy deployed during the 1990s, when states alleged that tobacco companies knew cigarettes cause cancer. Four large companies settled the cases by paying billions to fund states’ anti-smoking campaigns and other efforts. The manufacturers also must make annual payments to the states as long as they sell cigarettes in the United States.

The settlement set a powerful precedent for using litigation to hold industries accountable for public harm caused by deceptive practices.

“All of these [climate] cases are fundamentally deception cases,” said Benjamin Franta, a professor of climate law at University of Oxford and leader of its Climate Litigation Lab.

For decades, climate cases leaned on environmental laws and regulations rather than corporate accountability, Franta said. But with deception cases, “you can go directly after the private companies,” he said, and “the damages could be enormous.”

But while tobacco lawsuits proved corporations can be held accountable, legal experts say taking on Big Oil presents bigger hurdles.

Michael Gerrard, an environmental law expert at Columbia Law School, said the oil industry, unlike the tobacco industry, is actively supported by government policies, from subsidies to infrastructure investments, that promote oil consumption.

“There are a lot of lawsuits pending, but so far, not a single court in the world has held fossil fuel companies financially responsible for greenhouse gas emissions,” Gerrard said. “It’s highly uncertain whether these cases will ultimately succeed.”

Oil companies say holding them accountable for climate change makes them responsible for an entire economy that depends on their products — a defense that has found traction in some state courts.

“It’s not the oil and gas companies that are actually the direct polluters,” Gerrard said. Liability may have to be assigned along a vast supply chain, from refiners to power plants — even consumers who buy the gasoline, plastics and other products produced from fossil fuels, he said.

Also, while the connection between climate change and fossil fuels has been clearly documented by scientists, the evidence is less definitive linking fossil fuels to specific extreme weather events such as droughts or wildfires. And climate-warming greenhouse gases are global in scope and emitted by a variety of fossil fuels and other sources, not just gasoline and other products manufactured by the oil industry.

In one closely watched climate case in Hawaii, 20 states, including Texas, Wyoming and Alaska, threw their weight behind the oil industry, which asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. The court in January denied that request.

Still, climate liability efforts are gaining traction in some areas, especially in California, following January’s devastating wildfires in Los Angeles.

State Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, introduced a bill in January that would give homeowners and insurance companies new rights to sue oil companies for climate disasters. State Sen. Caroline Menjivar, a Democrat from Van Nuys, reintroduced a version of a bill that failed last year, requiring companies to pay for the damage greenhouse gas emissions have caused in California since 1990.

A test case in Honolulu 

Climate plaintiffs recently notched a win in January when the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request by the oil industry to intervene in the Hawaii lawsuit, allowing cases in state courts to move forward for now. The city and county of Honolulu filed suit in 2020 seeking unspecified damages from Sunoco LP, Exxon Mobil and other oil companies.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the oil industry, supported by 20 states, maintained that federal law precludes states’ rights to seek damages from greenhouse gases, which are emitted worldwide. The states, led by Alabama, said Honolulu is violating their rights by “asserting the power to enact disastrous global energy policy via state tort law. Among their demands is that major energy companies stop ‘promoting the sale and use’ of their fuel products.”

The Biden administration argued that the Supreme Court should let the Hawaii proceedings play out in state court.

“The oil companies would love to have this court decide right now that all of these cases should be thrown out. Well, they didn’t get that,” said Pat Parenteau, a law professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School who specializes in climate policy. “So now it’s a case-by-case battle until they can get one of these cases back to the Supreme Court — that’s what their end game is.”

After surviving multiple dismissal attempts, Honolulu’s lawsuit is the furthest along of any state climate lawsuits. The case is entering full discovery, meaning oil companies could soon need to turn over documents and sit for depositions that could be illuminating about their role in climate change, said Corey Riday-White, a managing attorney at the Center for Climate Integrity, which supports efforts to challenge oil companies in court and sponsored Wiener’s legislation.

If a jury delivers a big verdict in the Honolulu case, the pressure to settle will mount, experts say. But the case would almost certainly be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where many justices are seen as favorable to corporate interests. President Donald Trump’s Justice Department is likely to support oil companies.

One major hurdle for climate suit plaintiffs is the industry’s push to move cases to federal courts, where judges have been more inclined than state courts to dismiss them, legal experts said. State courts also have dismissed some recent cases.

California has played a major role in the litigation. In 2023, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron and the American Petroleum Institute, alleging that they misled the public about climate change. The suit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, seeks unspecified damages, penalties and the establishment of an abatement fund to cover future costs.

Franta noted that California’s case could be a game changer.

“California’s case is among the most important,” said Franta of the Climate Litigation Lab. “It’s an enormous jurisdiction, and bringing a very muscular claim against many companies, and under different causes of action. And of course we know there’s a lot of climate-related damages — economic damages and property damages — in California.”

If successful, these cases could set a precedent similar to the tobacco cases, ultimately holding fossil fuel companies accountable.

The American Petroleum Institute did not respond to a request by CalMatters for comment, but in 2023 called California’s lawsuit “meritless” and “politicized,” adding that climate policy should be legislated in Congress and not decided in the courts.

Last year, a judge approved a request by Bonta to coordinate with multiple other California jurisdictions that had sued the oil industry on similar grounds.

Evidence of industry deception 

Plaintiffs argue that oil companies misled the public about climate change, and there’s strong evidence they did. But proving those deceptions influenced consumer behavior — or that a better-informed public would have acted differently — is far from straightforward.

“Would they have stopped filling their tanks if a sign at the gas pump said, ‘This fuel contributes to climate change?’” Gerrard asked.

Many experts mark the wave of climate litigation as beginning in 2017, when San Francisco, Oakland and other California municipalities sued major oil companies for deceptive practices, marking a shift from earlier, largely unsuccessful federal claims.

For years, plaintiffs filing climate cases relied on environmental laws and regulations . But now they are focusing on allegations of deception.

Internal documents reveal that by the 1960s, oil companies began predicting fossil fuels could drive catastrophic climate change. Yet, in later decades, as scientists increasingly came to the consensus that burning fossil fuels caused climate change, oil companies ran ads, filed reports and lobbied lawmakers to spread the opposite message — that climate change wasn’t real or wasn’t a big deal.

In the 1970s, Exxon had internal climate research predicting today’s global warming with stunning accuracy. By the early 1980s, the industry knew what was happening, how severe it would be and that fossil fuels were the cause. A pivotal moment came in 2015 when investigative journalists exposed what the industry knew.

Tobacco industry suits focusing on deception also paved the way for lawsuits against other large industries, including opioid manufacturers, big banks after the housing crash and chemical companies for polluting water with “forever chemicals.”

Heat waves and wildfires

In the meantime, the science that links climate change to specific effects has evolved rapidly, now churning out real-time assessments of how much climate change has worsened a given disaster.

The science has changed from one of uncertainty to precise statements like a specific hurricane’s “rainfall was made 40% worse by climate change,” said Kristina Dahl, vice president for science at Climate Central, which works on quantifying how much climate change is worsening extreme weather.

Because of the evolving science, some cases are also getting more specific. In Oregon’s Multnomah County, a lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corp. and other oil and gas companies zeroes in on the Pacific Northwest’s devastating 2021 heat wave, attempting to link its deadly impact to climate change and seeking $1.55 billion in damages and a $50 billion abatement fund.

Connecting wildfires to fossil fuel companies is particularly difficult, since fires are often ignited by identifiable parties, such as utilities or arsonists, who can be held directly liable.

Former California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones has spent years trying to get the insurance industry to acknowledge the financial risks of climate change. But while insurers are quick to pull out of high-risk areas and raise rates, they’ve been far less willing to hold oil companies accountable for the disasters their emissions are fueling.

The insurance industry is facing an existential crisis, Jones said. Wildfires, hurricanes and even newly emerging threats like severe convective storms are making it harder to insure homes and businesses.

Insurance companies are still heavily invested in the industry driving it. According to Jones, U.S. insurers have over half a trillion dollars tied up in fossil fuels.

If oil companies are held financially responsible for disasters, Gerrard of Columbia Law School warned that equity firms or foreign companies with even less concern for climate issues could swoop in.

“If the companies go bankrupt, they’ll be bought by firms that will be happy to drill,” Gerrard said.

After months of debate and false starts, the Los Angeles City Council voted Wednesday in favor of developing a potential November ballot measure that would ask voters to rein in the city’s controversial “mansion tax.”

Ahead of the 9-5 vote to proceed with proposed tax breaks for new apartment buildings, Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson said he has seen affordable housing construction decline in his district after the policy — called Measure ULA — took effect in 2023.

“I can tell you with certainty ULA has not helped,” Harris-Dawson said. “Housing starts are as low in my district as they’ve been the entire time I’ve been in office.”

Harris-Dawson said neighboring cities, such as Inglewood and Gardena, where new apartment buildings are not subject to L.A.’s tax, have not seen similar declines.

While a majority of the council voted to proceed with a possible ballot measure, Councilmembers Ysabel Jurado, Imelda Padilla, Monica Rodriguez, Eunisses Hernandez and Hugo Soto-Martinez voted against the proposal.

Reform advocates cheered the vote, but said more work is needed. Miguel Santana, president of the California Community Foundation, has pushed for changes with the “Mend It, Don’t End It” coalition, a group of affordable housing developers, labor organizations and business leaders.

“Today the City Council took another important step towards reforming Measure ULA in a way that will allow us to start building housing again while saving a critical funding source that we desperately need," Santana said in a written statement.

‘Mansion tax’ nuts and bolts

Measure ULA taxes the sale of real estate worth $5.3 million or more. That includes large, luxury single-family homes, which is why the measure is often called the city’s “mansion tax.”

However, the tax also applies to apartment buildings and other commercial real estate. Economists have said that’s causing a slow-down in new multi-family construction at a time when L.A. needs more housing supply to keep up with demand and prevent rents from spiking.

During Wednesday’s meeting, Councilmembers Tim McOsker and Katy Yaroslavsky put forward a motion asking the City Attorney to draft a ballot measure that would ask voters to cancel the tax on sales of multifamily and residential mixed-use buildings within the first 10 years of their construction.

That reform proposal is somewhat similar to earlier failed attempts at changing the tax, including from Councilmember (and now mayoral candidate) Nithya Raman and a separate effort from state legislators.

What happens next? 

The council’s proposed measure is still far from officially qualifying for the November ballot. Sending final language to the ballot will require another council vote, and the council could potentially decide later this summer to pull the measure.

If it does appear on the ballot, a majority of L.A. voters would need to approve the changes before new apartment buildings would be exempt. Close to 58% of the city’s voters supported Measure ULA when it first came up for a vote in November 2022.

In a separate vote Wednesday, the council moved forward with another potential ballot measure that would ask voters to exempt Pacific Palisades homeowners from the tax if they sell their properties after the January 2025 Palisades Fire.

To complicate matters further, voters are likely to encounter yet another measure on the November ballot related to the city’s “mansion tax.”

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has qualified a measure that would repeal L.A.’s tax, and similar taxes across the state, while simultaneously raising the voter-approval threshold for new taxes.

How we got here

Though reforms are tentative at this point, the council’s decision to pursue a ballot measure is an about-face from a committee’s earlier decision to keep changes off the November ballot.

Jurado, the chair of that committee, repeated her argument that it’s too soon to conclude the tax has caused apartment developers to retreat from L.A.

“When we focus just on housing production alone, we’re missing the mark about what this measure was actually intended to do, which is to keep Angelenos housed,” Jurado said during Wednesday’s meeting.

What has tax revenue funded so far? 

Measure ULA has raised $1.2 billion over the last three years, far less than the $1.1 billion in annual funding supporters said the tax could raise. That funding has gone toward affordable housing construction and tenant aid programs, such as rent relief and eviction defense.

However, the city has encountered trouble spending the money on its intended purposes.

City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto has refused to sign contracts approved by the city council and the mayor in April for $177 million in tenant aid. And the measure’s strict rules on how tax revenue can be spent to support affordable housing projects have required city leaders to pursue changes to funding restrictions.

Tax supporters expressed disappointment with the council vote. Joe Donlin, executive director of the United to House L.A. Coalition, said a local ballot measure aimed at carving out certain types of real estate could help fuel the argument for full repeal being made by tax opponents.

"Such a move plays into the hands of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association and its allies in the real estate lobby," Donlin said in an written statement.

He went on to say tax breaks would lead to less revenue meant to keep city residents housed.

"If this ballot measure were to pass, it could mean tens of millions of dollars per year cut from programs that build affordable housing and combat homelessness," Donlin said.

A fire at a Boyle Heights commercial building sent up a massive plume of black smoke on Wednesday and prompted a shelter-in-place order due to hazardous materials, including ammonia.

Fire broke out around 2:35 p.m. at a 1,000-foot by 500-foot cold storage facility at 1400 S. Los Palos St. with solar panels on the roof, according to the Los Angeles Fire Department. The fire reached an ammonia line, officials said, prompting firefighters to pull back as it started off-gassing and order people nearby to shelter in place.

The ammonia is not toxic to individuals unless they have respiratory issues or come into direct contact with it, LAFD Chief Jaime Moore said. Adjacent structures were evacuated to keep people from breathing in the ammonia that was in the air, and firefighters pivoted to using water drops from helicopters to take on the flames as they spread across the building’s rooftop solar panels “almost like a brush fire would,” he said.

“Get inside IMMEDIATELY and close all windows and doors. Turn off air conditioning/heating. Bring all people and pets to an inside room until you receive more instructions,” an LAFD alert said.

The shelter-in-place order was in effect for the area south of Interstate 5, east of Soto Street, north of Washington Boulevard and west of Indiana Street. As of 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, LAFD Capt. Anthony Tubbs said officials did not know when it would be lifted.

East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice urged people outside the shelter-in-place boundaries to also take precautions.

“The 5 freeway is not an air filter. The smoke is spreading and everyone in adjacent neighborhoods should reduce the risk of smoke exposure ASAP,” the organization wrote in an Instagram post.

By 4 p.m., authorities added a smoke advisory covering East LA, Commerce and parts of downtown. Heavy, black smoke was visible across the region.

The water drops via helicopter were helping to get the fire under control by Wednesday evening. Authorities planned to use an LAFD robot to get inside and assess the building, Moore said.

“This is a very unique situation because of the size of the building,” he added.

The business at 1400 Los Palos is called Lineage, a logistics company that offers cold storage services, according to the company’s website.

According to LAFD firefighter Jennifer Middleton, over 120 firefighters were on scene battling the blaze. Air quality was being monitored in the area, Middleton said.

“Any sort of structure fire with [solar] panels burning, there’s going to be some sort of hazardous materials in the air,” Middleton said.

No injuries have been reported, she added, but she also urged people to stay inside if smoke was reaching their area.

“Close your windows, stay indoors, turn off your air conditioning, and just shelter in place. We don’t want anyone breathing that smoke. And don’t go outside to watch the fire,” Middleton said. “If need be, you can leave the area to more clear air.”

Local organizations including Neighborhood Music, Centro CSO and Plaza de la Raza announced on social media they were either canceling classes and meetings or moving them online.

In a statement, District 14 Councilmember Ysabel Jurado said her office was monitoring the situation.

“Right now, the most important thing is to follow the shelter-in-place order that has been issued because of the smoke,” Jurado said. “Residents should stay indoors, keep windows and doors closed, avoid unnecessary travel in the area, and follow instructions from first responders.”

Mayor Karen Bass also urged people to stay inside.

“I urge everyone in the impacted area to get indoors immediately, close windows and doors, turn off air conditioning, and avoid unnecessary travel to the area,” she said. “I want to thank the brave LAFD and public safety personnel who responded quickly and remain on scene.”

Officials in the neighboring city of Maywood also urged people to stay away from the area.

Air quality regulators say an oil recycling facility in Compton violated pollution rules and improperly maintained some of its equipment.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District issued four notices of violation to World Oil Recycling in Compton, and one notice of violation to a contractor operating leaky equipment on its property.

The Compton facility “receives used oils, glycol and wastewater and re-refines these materials into engine oil and glycol products for reuse,” according to the air district. The largest oil recycler in the state, it’s located in some of the most pollution-burdened and low-income neighborhoods in California, as well, where asthma rates are higher than 95% of census tracts, according to state data.

The violations came after the air district started receiving odor complaints from residents at the start of this year. The agency received more than 70 complaints of strong odors of gas, including from the nearby Jefferson Elementary School, the agency said in a news release.

Officials then carried out more than a dozen on-site inspections, including using an infrared camera to identify gas leaks. They found hydrocarbons leaking from a wastewater storage tank, as well as a centrifuge pump. A small fire at the facility in late May also led to nuisance notices from the agency.

The company told LAist it is working to remove the leaky storage tank that may have caused the odors.

“World Oil Recycling provides an essential environmental service by recycling used oil and other materials, helping to keep them out of landfills and waterways,” a spokesperson for the company said in a statement. “We are committed to meeting or exceeding the highest standards at our facility in Compton, where we have operated safely for more than 40 years and serve as a major local employer.”

If World Oil Recycling doesn’t comply, it could face fines or litigation.

The company has faced such issues in the past. In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency reached a settlement with World Oil’s Compton and Vernon facilities for violating hazardous waste regulations. The agreement required the companies to pay a $39,092 penalty and spend $167,967 on air filtration systems in nearby schools to reduce indoor air pollution.

The facility has received dozens of violation notices from the air district over the years, as well, mostly for minor maintenance issues.

In a statement to LAist, Compton Mayor Emma Sharif said the city “is working with the appropriate regulatory agencies as they continue their investigation.”

California will not consider the city of Los Angeles’ request for a time extension on three mobility projects in underinvested communities that are largely funded by more than $100 million from the state.

The exclusion of the request from the California Transportation Commission's June agenda spells an uncertain fate for the projects in Boyle Heights, Skid Row and Wilmington, which involve repairing sidewalks, adding bike lanes and installing traffic-calming measures to make streets friendlier to non-vehicular modes of transportation.

In April, the city formally requested a six-year extension on state-mandated deadlines to complete pre-construction work on the projects, saying recent staffing and funding constraints in the public works and transportation departments have hampered progress.

Justin Behrens, the spokesperson for the commission, said that while the state grant program offers time extensions in certain cases, “The requested time exceeded what is allowable under the guidelines,” and extensions were ultimately not recommended to be considered by the commission.

The state funds for pre-construction work, including environmental review and design, are set to lapse at the end of June.

L.A. officials said in a March report that without the time extension, “The city will be unable to meet these deadlines and lose the opportunity to provide these critical improvements for the city.”

The Bureau of Street Services, which is the lead agency on the three projects, did not respond to requests for comment.

'A deeply disappointing moment'

A statement from the office of L.A. City Councilmember Ysabel Jurado said the situation is “disappointing” and that the councilmember is taking time to “fully understand” what the California Transportation Commission’s decision means for the projects in her district.

“What we can say clearly is this: We are not giving up,” the statement read. “Boyle Heights and Skid Row have waited far too long for safer, more accessible streets, and the residents who organized for these improvements deserve more than a setback and a closed door.”

Jurado advocated for additional staffing resources across the bureaus of Street Services, Street Lighting and Engineering, as well as the Department of Transportation, to deliver the projects.

For Jens Midthun, the president of the DTLA Neighborhood Council, any investment in improving the walkability of downtown L.A. is a worthy one.

“People in downtown L.A. are here because they want to be,” Midthun said about the neighborhood’s transition from a business hub to a residential destination. “People want to be part of a vibrant city center.”

L.A. City Councilmember Tim McOsker's office said in a statement that infrastructure improvements in Wilmington “remain a priority.”

“We will continue exploring funding opportunities and other available options to advance as much of the project as possible,” McOsker's office said.

The grant program

Since its launch in 2013, the state’s Active Transportation Program has funded capital projects that promote walking, cycling or other non-motorized ways to get around. Behrens said the program is competitive and over-subscribed, meaning the applications for funds “far exceeds the available resources.”

Over the course of the grant program, L.A. has secured $500 million to fund 46 transportation projects across the city, according to a June report from Laura Rubio-Cornejo, the general manager of the city’s Department of Transportation.

Twenty of those projects have been constructed and staff is actively working on designing, implementing or closing out another 22.

Jurisdictions that win the funds have to adhere to strict timelines to retain the money, which is allocated based on different phases of a capital project. Failing to meet the program’s deadlines can jeopardize a city or county’s likelihood of clinching future grants.

The program’s deadlines require the city to allocate funds for construction for the three projects in question by the end of June 2027. In its request for a time extension, the city said it would need an additional six years to get to that point.

Absent a time extension, it’s unclear what the path forward is for the three projects.

The city in June submitted its application for the next round of Active Transportation Program grants, though its ambitions were tempered by “staff resource limitations and the city’s existing grant commitments.”

The projects it submitted for consideration to the state include extending the LARiverWay bike path and enhancing mobility along Huntington Drive.